Six eBay executives and employees charged over alleged cyberstalking campaign(boston.cbslocal.com)
boston.cbslocal.com
Six eBay executives and employees charged over alleged cyberstalking campaign
https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/06/15/ebay-employees-arrested-u-s-attorney-andrew-lelling-cyberstalking/
224 comments
This does not surprise me.
Some CEOs are incredibly thin-skinned, they hire a bunch of people who usually got kicked out of the police after they harassed/beat someone, and then self-destruct with their own personal army when they can't handle the heat (you will get criticised daily).
Btw, something that was coincident with this (I believe) was the activist campaign against EBay...again, the number of executives who self-destruct when they see proof that they are bad at their job is significant (I wouldn't like to venture a guess at a proportion but I have seen this 10+ times).
Just imo, the problem is always lack of oversight. Boards not really asking whether the executives are up to the job, fat expense accounts with lots of these ex-police nutjobs stalking people, it is just total madness. Companies become captured by these executives.
(I used to know a guy who ran a relatively small fund but used to short sell frauds, mainly accounting as the guy used to be an accountant. He had to go to great lengths to hide what he was doing because the second a company found out, they would send people to wait outside his office/follow him/etc. and this is just a nobody guy running a small fund in a mid-tier financial city i.e. not London, or New York, or HK...I call these executives the Harvard Business School Al-Qaeda, truly dangerous people).
Some CEOs are incredibly thin-skinned, they hire a bunch of people who usually got kicked out of the police after they harassed/beat someone, and then self-destruct with their own personal army when they can't handle the heat (you will get criticised daily).
Btw, something that was coincident with this (I believe) was the activist campaign against EBay...again, the number of executives who self-destruct when they see proof that they are bad at their job is significant (I wouldn't like to venture a guess at a proportion but I have seen this 10+ times).
Just imo, the problem is always lack of oversight. Boards not really asking whether the executives are up to the job, fat expense accounts with lots of these ex-police nutjobs stalking people, it is just total madness. Companies become captured by these executives.
(I used to know a guy who ran a relatively small fund but used to short sell frauds, mainly accounting as the guy used to be an accountant. He had to go to great lengths to hide what he was doing because the second a company found out, they would send people to wait outside his office/follow him/etc. and this is just a nobody guy running a small fund in a mid-tier financial city i.e. not London, or New York, or HK...I call these executives the Harvard Business School Al-Qaeda, truly dangerous people).
When you put it like that, it explains the security guy for hooli on silicon valley, played by Chris Williams, "Hoover". He's exactly that stereotype. And even on Devs the security guy was in that category.
I did feel that both those shows still painted the leaders a bit too positively, in that they often didn't directly concern themselves with what their 'security guy' did, or isolate themselves from it. I suspect in practice they're much more aware and hands-on.
I thought Tesla was using a Stingray IMSI Catcher to intercept personal cellular communications of its "employees" in a small radius of the factory.
I thought it was becoming common knowledge this is the case in many Silicon Valley campuses...
https://www.businessinsider.com/ex-tesla-employee-claims-the...
https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/3/16408724/waymo-uber-lewan...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-nuvia-lawsuit/apple...
I am pretty sure none of these people used their corporate issued cell phones...
It wouldn't take much to get a nice Stingray and plant it at HQ...
I thought it was becoming common knowledge this is the case in many Silicon Valley campuses...
https://www.businessinsider.com/ex-tesla-employee-claims-the...
https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/3/16408724/waymo-uber-lewan...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-nuvia-lawsuit/apple...
I am pretty sure none of these people used their corporate issued cell phones...
It wouldn't take much to get a nice Stingray and plant it at HQ...
Tesla/Elon got away with what looks like swatting a former employee, and makes use of sketchy freelance sketchy private investigators.
Elon is low integrity. I know he is popular here but he just seems like a pretty scummy guy. I know one of the biggest holders of Tesla, and they have said (publicly too, I believe) that he isn't an ethical guy but they still have a huge position (too big to probably sell now tbh)...a lot of wishful thinking with Musk.
I remember there was a claim against a former employee at tesla. And of course companies have a lot of money and power that could be leveraged against an employee, but there are always two sides. It would be big news if tesla did something like that, can you point to a story about that?
As another poster included: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-13/when-elon...
“ An anonymous caller had contacted the company to say Tripp was planning a mass shooting at the Gigafactory. When the police confronted Tripp that evening, he was unarmed and in tears. He said he was terrified of Musk and suggested the billionaire might have called in the tip himself.”
“ An anonymous caller had contacted the company to say Tripp was planning a mass shooting at the Gigafactory. When the police confronted Tripp that evening, he was unarmed and in tears. He said he was terrified of Musk and suggested the billionaire might have called in the tip himself.”
Just what? That's so messed up. I didn't realize situations like this actually happen. I'm shocked.
This has been discussed here in the past, but since it's Musk's (Who can do no wrong) word against some nobody's, it has never gotten much prominence.
It's very sad - if anything, his fans, should for at least pragmatic reasons keep him accountable, or he will self destruct before he can achieve the Mars Colony.
A choice quote from the wickedlocal coverage:
> Those involved became so concerned that they developed a list of people in California they could frame if authorities tracked the harassment there, Lelling said
> Those involved became so concerned that they developed a list of people in California they could frame if authorities tracked the harassment there, Lelling said
[deleted]
Looking at the affidavit [1], Executive 1 is definitely the ex-CEO.
> "On April 10, 2019... Executive 2 texted Executive 1... sending along a link to the Newsletter’s coverage that day [2] of Executive 1's compensation".
[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/465728291/FBI-Affidavit-agai...
[2] https://www.ecommercebytes.com/C/blog/blog.pl?/pl/2019/4/155...
> "On April 10, 2019... Executive 2 texted Executive 1... sending along a link to the Newsletter’s coverage that day [2] of Executive 1's compensation".
[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/465728291/FBI-Affidavit-agai...
[2] https://www.ecommercebytes.com/C/blog/blog.pl?/pl/2019/4/155...
Indeed. From the Boston Globe article [1]
"... the article stated that Executive 1 “has been unable to stop a decline in market sales, but trying to dissuade sellers from turning to Amazon (and trying to get Amazon to stop recruiting sellers) may not be the best tactic."
From the couple's blog [2]:
"eBay's CEO has been unable to stop a decline in marketplace sales, but trying to dissuade sellers from turning to Amazon (and trying to get Amazon to stop recruiting sellers) may not be the best tactic."
If proven true, the CEO was not only aware, but also condoned such tactics, and ordered to "Take her down". This will make the situation even worse for ebay's board to justify why they didn't fire the guy on the spot.
[1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/15/metro/six-former-ebay...
[2] https://www.ecommercebytes.com/C/blog/blog.pl?/pl/2019/8/156...
"... the article stated that Executive 1 “has been unable to stop a decline in market sales, but trying to dissuade sellers from turning to Amazon (and trying to get Amazon to stop recruiting sellers) may not be the best tactic."
From the couple's blog [2]:
"eBay's CEO has been unable to stop a decline in marketplace sales, but trying to dissuade sellers from turning to Amazon (and trying to get Amazon to stop recruiting sellers) may not be the best tactic."
If proven true, the CEO was not only aware, but also condoned such tactics, and ordered to "Take her down". This will make the situation even worse for ebay's board to justify why they didn't fire the guy on the spot.
[1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/15/metro/six-former-ebay...
[2] https://www.ecommercebytes.com/C/blog/blog.pl?/pl/2019/8/156...
[deleted]
"Former eBay CEO Devin Wenig also left the company that month. While he isn't named in the criminal complaint, eBay confirmed that he is "Executive 1" who allegedly gave the initial order to "Take her down" (which was then relayed to Baugh by "Executive 2")."
https://www.wired.com/story/ebay-employees-charged-cyberstal...
https://www.wired.com/story/ebay-employees-charged-cyberstal...
Devin Wenig (the ex-CEO) is on GM's board of directors. And.. he's up for re-election tomorrow!
Coincidental timing?
If I 'm reading this clearly, this investigation was a material factor in the CEO's departure from eBay! Crazy - he might yet be indicted since the FBI is still investigating..
Since this is the top comment, you may also want to edit that Devin Wenig is the former CEO[0]
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/25/ebay-ceo-devin-wenig-is-step...
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/25/ebay-ceo-devin-wenig-is-step...
You know they hoped this would never come to light and they wouldn't have to admit that it happened.
I buy a ton of things off eBay. This is seriously making me not want to do business with them again.
Not having read / watched the press brefing my first reaction to this comment was, I admit, a bit eye-rolly. Then I watched it.
If that is your reaction, seriously, go and watch it. It really is an extraordinary set of allegations. It's nine minutes long and it just gets weirder and weirder.
If that is your reaction, seriously, go and watch it. It really is an extraordinary set of allegations. It's nine minutes long and it just gets weirder and weirder.
And he's still leaving details out! I can't wait to read the complaint itself.
The CEO gets fired and you want to punish the company who fired him. Who's side are you on?
I take it as the CEO left for reasons stated at the time as other than this incident, when in fact eBay actually knew about the CEO’s involvement but hoped the real reason wouldn’t ever come out.
The company created an environment which enabled this sort of behaviour. This wasn't some rogue employee operating under the radar - this was a conspiracy through multiple levels of management.
[deleted]
Yup, same here.
Piggybacking on my own comment to add one last link, to the actual affidavit. Still working my way through all 51 pages, but it's pretty obvious who "Executive 1" is.
https://www.scribd.com/document/465728291/FBI-Affidavit-agai...
https://www.scribd.com/document/465728291/FBI-Affidavit-agai...
That reads as if there was no actual smoking gun to directly link the [former] CEO but there were probably at least tangentially related questionable emails. But wow. Head of Corporate Comms among others.
https://www.ecommercebytes.com/C/blog/blog.pl?/pl/2020/6/159...
It says on June 30, the Ebay CFO and two Ebay board members are "retiring".
Commenters in this thread are questioning why this blog was targeted and speculating without any facts.
May I suggest reading the FBI's Criminal Complaint:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200616015754if_/https://assets...
Additonally, here is a PDF of the FBI's Affidavit, instead of the scribd nonsense.
https://regmedia.co.uk/2020/06/15/ebayaffadavit.pdf
For those who will not read the complaint, here's a few excerpts:
18. On April 10, 2019, for example, Executive 2 texted Executive 1, "We are going to crush this lady", sending along a link to the Newsletter's coverage that day of Executive 1's compensation.
19. On April 20, 2019, discussing the Wall Street Journal's coverage of Executive 1, Executive 1 texted to Executive 2, "Fuck them. The journal is next on the list after [Victim 1]."
20. On May 31, 2019, commenting on the Newsletter's coverage of eBay that day, Executive 2 texted to Executive 1, "Shockingly reasonable..." Executive 1 replied, "I couldn t care less what she says." Seconds later, Executive 1 added, "Take her down."
22. Like many news outlets, the Newsletter offered its readers the opportunity to comment underneath Victim 1 s stories. The anonymous comments were sometimes critical of eBay and its executive leadership team. At other times, the comments amounted to namecalling. For example, a May 2015 comment called eBay executives liars and thugs who should be jailed; a May 2017 comment called Executive 1 the devil; and an April 2018 comment stated that Executive 1 was delusional.
23. One commenter in particular, who went by the online nicknames FidoMaster, FidoMaster1, Dan Davis, or UnsuckeBay (collectively, the Parody Account expressed frequent and negative opinions regarding eBay.2 In addition to commenting below the Newsletter s articles, the anonymous author(s) of the Parody Account sometimes posted opinions critical of eBay in Twitter feeds, impersonated official eBay communications using a distorted version of the company's logo, or sent messages that one eBay seller considered to be harassing.
24. On May 21, 2019, for example, the Newsletter reported that eBay had built on its campus an expensive replica of Walker a popular Manhattan bar noting, "It's probably news to sellers (and shareholders?) that eBay has a pub-like lounge on campus especially one built with what appears to be no-expenses spared." FidoMaster1 tweeted a link to the article, noting @[Newsletter] posted about @eBay s beleagured [Executive 1 s] self-indulgent vanity project Walker's West campus bar. The tweet continued, "The bar, [Executive 1's] recreation of iconic @WalkersBarNYC is a throwback to internet and gaming company CEO s lavish overspending on legacy facilities and landmarks." FidoMaster1 also criticized Executive 1 for undertaking the project while eBay was experiencing cost reduction, layoffs, and scrutiny by activist investors.
25. In March 2019, in response to a request from Executive 2, the GIC prepared a report for BAUGH summarizing the Parody Account s discussions of eBay over the last year. The report noted that FidoMaster1/Dan Davis was an anonymous [T]witter user that posts negative content about eBay and its senior leadership. Regarding Fidomaster1/Dan Davis relationship with the Newsletter, the report noted the owner of this account corresponds regularly with [the Newsletter] editor [Victim 1] about issues pertaining to eBay. [Victim 1] and [the Newsletter] are known for publishing negative content about eBay and its executives.
31. On or about July 18, 2019, Executive 1's spouse texted BAUGH privately about a comment underneath a Newsletter article that called Executive 1 a con artist and thief. The spouse wrote: "I'm not exactly thrilled with this post on my favorite [Newsletter]. The author gets people worked up with the way she skews her stories. Don t tell [Executive 1] I sent this I m just letting you know about it. Ok?"
34. On August 1, 2019, the New York Times published an article reporting that eBay had accused Amazon in a lawsuit of unlawfully poaching eBay sellers to Amazon s online marketplace.
35. That day, at approximately 1:46 p.m., Victim 1 posted an article on the Newsletter under the headline "eBay RICO Lawsuit Meant to Curb Seller Exodus to Amazon?" Victim 1's article reported on both Executive 1 and eBay's lawsuit: "[Executive 1] has been unable to stop a decline in market sales, but trying to dissuade sellers from turning to Amazon (and trying to get Amazon to stop recruiting sellers) may not be the best tactic."
36. Just half an hour later, at 2:19 p.m., Executive 1 texted Executive 2: "[Victim 1] is out with a hot piece on the litigation. If you are ever going to take her down..now is the time."
37. Executive 2 responded shortly afterward by text message: "On it."
It says on June 30, the Ebay CFO and two Ebay board members are "retiring".
Commenters in this thread are questioning why this blog was targeted and speculating without any facts.
May I suggest reading the FBI's Criminal Complaint:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200616015754if_/https://assets...
Additonally, here is a PDF of the FBI's Affidavit, instead of the scribd nonsense.
https://regmedia.co.uk/2020/06/15/ebayaffadavit.pdf
For those who will not read the complaint, here's a few excerpts:
18. On April 10, 2019, for example, Executive 2 texted Executive 1, "We are going to crush this lady", sending along a link to the Newsletter's coverage that day of Executive 1's compensation.
19. On April 20, 2019, discussing the Wall Street Journal's coverage of Executive 1, Executive 1 texted to Executive 2, "Fuck them. The journal is next on the list after [Victim 1]."
20. On May 31, 2019, commenting on the Newsletter's coverage of eBay that day, Executive 2 texted to Executive 1, "Shockingly reasonable..." Executive 1 replied, "I couldn t care less what she says." Seconds later, Executive 1 added, "Take her down."
22. Like many news outlets, the Newsletter offered its readers the opportunity to comment underneath Victim 1 s stories. The anonymous comments were sometimes critical of eBay and its executive leadership team. At other times, the comments amounted to namecalling. For example, a May 2015 comment called eBay executives liars and thugs who should be jailed; a May 2017 comment called Executive 1 the devil; and an April 2018 comment stated that Executive 1 was delusional.
23. One commenter in particular, who went by the online nicknames FidoMaster, FidoMaster1, Dan Davis, or UnsuckeBay (collectively, the Parody Account expressed frequent and negative opinions regarding eBay.2 In addition to commenting below the Newsletter s articles, the anonymous author(s) of the Parody Account sometimes posted opinions critical of eBay in Twitter feeds, impersonated official eBay communications using a distorted version of the company's logo, or sent messages that one eBay seller considered to be harassing.
24. On May 21, 2019, for example, the Newsletter reported that eBay had built on its campus an expensive replica of Walker a popular Manhattan bar noting, "It's probably news to sellers (and shareholders?) that eBay has a pub-like lounge on campus especially one built with what appears to be no-expenses spared." FidoMaster1 tweeted a link to the article, noting @[Newsletter] posted about @eBay s beleagured [Executive 1 s] self-indulgent vanity project Walker's West campus bar. The tweet continued, "The bar, [Executive 1's] recreation of iconic @WalkersBarNYC is a throwback to internet and gaming company CEO s lavish overspending on legacy facilities and landmarks." FidoMaster1 also criticized Executive 1 for undertaking the project while eBay was experiencing cost reduction, layoffs, and scrutiny by activist investors.
25. In March 2019, in response to a request from Executive 2, the GIC prepared a report for BAUGH summarizing the Parody Account s discussions of eBay over the last year. The report noted that FidoMaster1/Dan Davis was an anonymous [T]witter user that posts negative content about eBay and its senior leadership. Regarding Fidomaster1/Dan Davis relationship with the Newsletter, the report noted the owner of this account corresponds regularly with [the Newsletter] editor [Victim 1] about issues pertaining to eBay. [Victim 1] and [the Newsletter] are known for publishing negative content about eBay and its executives.
31. On or about July 18, 2019, Executive 1's spouse texted BAUGH privately about a comment underneath a Newsletter article that called Executive 1 a con artist and thief. The spouse wrote: "I'm not exactly thrilled with this post on my favorite [Newsletter]. The author gets people worked up with the way she skews her stories. Don t tell [Executive 1] I sent this I m just letting you know about it. Ok?"
34. On August 1, 2019, the New York Times published an article reporting that eBay had accused Amazon in a lawsuit of unlawfully poaching eBay sellers to Amazon s online marketplace.
35. That day, at approximately 1:46 p.m., Victim 1 posted an article on the Newsletter under the headline "eBay RICO Lawsuit Meant to Curb Seller Exodus to Amazon?" Victim 1's article reported on both Executive 1 and eBay's lawsuit: "[Executive 1] has been unable to stop a decline in market sales, but trying to dissuade sellers from turning to Amazon (and trying to get Amazon to stop recruiting sellers) may not be the best tactic."
36. Just half an hour later, at 2:19 p.m., Executive 1 texted Executive 2: "[Victim 1] is out with a hot piece on the litigation. If you are ever going to take her down..now is the time."
37. Executive 2 responded shortly afterward by text message: "On it."
[deleted]
These are the newsletters in question. Looks like a normal niche trade community kind of site.
https://www.ecommercebytes.com/about/
Imagine being a (literally) mom and pop internet newsletter and having a giant come after you personally w/ lots of malice. Reminds me of nissan computer getting arm twisted by the datsun motor company.
https://www.ecommercebytes.com/about/
Imagine being a (literally) mom and pop internet newsletter and having a giant come after you personally w/ lots of malice. Reminds me of nissan computer getting arm twisted by the datsun motor company.
(Slightly in jest) I was annoyed that minecraft.com doesn't link to the game. It's some random company... that is actually in the craft of real world mining.
I'm surprised Nissan was not able to settle w/ mom and pop. Branding is worth millions. I doubt they were being stingy; were they holding out on principle? Were mom and pop asking for a silly amount?
It's also amusing a North American corporation was able to wrest the .amazon domain away from, well, the real Amazonians in Brazil.
I'm surprised Nissan was not able to settle w/ mom and pop. Branding is worth millions. I doubt they were being stingy; were they holding out on principle? Were mom and pop asking for a silly amount?
It's also amusing a North American corporation was able to wrest the .amazon domain away from, well, the real Amazonians in Brazil.
Nissan sued the guy(named nissan) for infringement so I think he got pissed. Notably his small computer shop(bearing his name) predated Nissan operating as Nissan(vs. Datsun) in America.
Similar things -- peloton.com is not the smartbike, chopt.com is not the salad place(but a sailboat sales company).
Similar things -- peloton.com is not the smartbike, chopt.com is not the salad place(but a sailboat sales company).
Also MikeRoweSoft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft
Why wouldn't the inventor of Peloton have just come up w/ a name for which he could obtain a .com domain name?
Dropbox was successfully got the domain by suing the original owner. That always bothered me.
After the owner filled it with ads for competitors.
So what? It is his property and he has any right to do so.
Chopt appears to sell primarily commercial powerboats.
I was excited to read what articles so touched the nerves of eBay executives- but there is a lot of content on the site.
Anyone find any that were especially critical or funny?
Anyone find any that were especially critical or funny?
Paragraph 18 [1] mentions Executive 1 being upset about an Apr 10th article [2] on their compensation.
[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/465728291/FBI-Affidavit-agai...
[2] https://www.ecommercebytes.com/C/blog/blog.pl?/pl/2019/4/155...
[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/465728291/FBI-Affidavit-agai...
[2] https://www.ecommercebytes.com/C/blog/blog.pl?/pl/2019/4/155...
Good catch! Now it makes sense why the CEO and CTO were involved.
Supposedly Aug 2019;
https://www.ecommercebytes.com/page/18/?s=ebay
Didn't see anything in there which would mess anyone's 'do. Though I suppose they may have removed the "offending" bits? It seems to be a pretty dry newsletter.
https://www.ecommercebytes.com/page/18/?s=ebay
Didn't see anything in there which would mess anyone's 'do. Though I suppose they may have removed the "offending" bits? It seems to be a pretty dry newsletter.
I assume that the newsletter wasn't the only thing that annoyed the CEO... There are thousands of other sites out there critical of eBay. Why this one? There must be some other reason for the harassment, as yet not unearthed...
[deleted]
There are several SEC filings around the departure of the CEO in Sept 2019[1][2] that line up with with the timeline mentioned in this article. Here's the relevant snippet from the 8-K:
"On September 24, 2019, the Company and Mr. Wenig entered into a letter agreement regarding his departure (the “Wenig Letter”). Pursuant to the terms of the Wenig Letter, in exchange for his execution and non-revocation of a release of claims against the Company, the Company agreed to provide Mr. Wenig with (1) the payments required to be made to him under his letter agreement with the Company dated September 29, 2014 upon a termination without cause, which letter agreement was originally filed with..."
The key bit is that the CEO stepping down triggered a severance agreement for termination without cause. This lines up with the reporting that he engaged in unethical behavior and had to be forced out.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1065088/0001...
[2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1065088/000119312519...
"On September 24, 2019, the Company and Mr. Wenig entered into a letter agreement regarding his departure (the “Wenig Letter”). Pursuant to the terms of the Wenig Letter, in exchange for his execution and non-revocation of a release of claims against the Company, the Company agreed to provide Mr. Wenig with (1) the payments required to be made to him under his letter agreement with the Company dated September 29, 2014 upon a termination without cause, which letter agreement was originally filed with..."
The key bit is that the CEO stepping down triggered a severance agreement for termination without cause. This lines up with the reporting that he engaged in unethical behavior and had to be forced out.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1065088/0001...
[2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1065088/000119312519...
I’m confused. How is unethical behavior not cause for termination?
This reads like doublespeak.
This reads like doublespeak.
Most likely one of two ways:
1. His employment contract specifies what reasons may justify a "termination for cause", and this wasn't listed.
(1a. eBay didn't want to have to prove that the conduct here met the definition of a specified "for cause" cause.)
2. eBay could have terminated him for cause, but intentionally terminated him for no cause instead in hopes of avoiding negative publicity.
1. His employment contract specifies what reasons may justify a "termination for cause", and this wasn't listed.
(1a. eBay didn't want to have to prove that the conduct here met the definition of a specified "for cause" cause.)
2. eBay could have terminated him for cause, but intentionally terminated him for no cause instead in hopes of avoiding negative publicity.
I bet it's number 2. Companies always try to hide this shit. Often the next one up as ceo is as ruthless as the last one.
They chose to pay his severance instead of disclosing they had an unethical CEO for 5 years.
Imagine if eBay said why the CEO was fired and then he turns around and starts telling the world where eBay’s bodies are buried.
It’s less risky for the company to do it this way.
It’s less risky for the company to do it this way.
It's hard to know where to even begin with this story.
Yes, it's utterly horrible and scummy behavior. Let's just get that out of the way.
But who on earth could have thought that morals notwithstanding it was even a vaguely sensible thing to do from a personal perspective to undertake a campaign of harassment that you'd think they must have known if it got out would result (in a minimum) at them being run out the company and likely blackballed from the industry.
The article does suggest this may have gone pretty far up which, I suppose, says something about the entire leadership team if true.
Yes, it's utterly horrible and scummy behavior. Let's just get that out of the way.
But who on earth could have thought that morals notwithstanding it was even a vaguely sensible thing to do from a personal perspective to undertake a campaign of harassment that you'd think they must have known if it got out would result (in a minimum) at them being run out the company and likely blackballed from the industry.
The article does suggest this may have gone pretty far up which, I suppose, says something about the entire leadership team if true.
It's like insane that this is a giant company full of people who should know better. Like how do you even talk to a single other person and have them not say something about how this seems like a bad idea.
>Like how do you even talk to a single other person and have them not say something about how this seems like a bad idea.
Sounds like you're not a team player who wants to be promoted to better support your family. /s
Sounds like you're not a team player who wants to be promoted to better support your family. /s
>have them not say something about how this seems like a bad idea.
I like to think I'd use other language and immediately report them--if only for my own protection.
I like to think I'd use other language and immediately report them--if only for my own protection.
Reporting them is the opposite of "for your own protection": they'll turn their harassment on you!
As soon as they've told you what they're going to do, you're probably an accomplice if you keep it to yourself. Your career at the company is probably toast at that point anyway. At least a paper trail helps to protect you from criminal complaints.
It doesn't sound like any of the people here were charged because they knew about it and said nothing, -- they were active participants.
Your calculus will hold the day we start charging people that walk past conduct like this but, seemingly, today is not that day.
Your calculus will hold the day we start charging people that walk past conduct like this but, seemingly, today is not that day.
IANAL, but I imagine it's generally hard to charge someone for simply turning a blind eye to illegal behavior. But if you come to me and say: "Hey, I've figured out a way to embezzle $100K from the company and I'll give you a cut if you help me," if all the facts come out at some point, you can be sure I'll be fired at a minimum whether or not there are any criminal charges.
My dad tried to beat into me that more cunning employees and managers often keep blackmail files as insurance.
[deleted]
My first thought was - oh that is what people with these bizzaire job titles do
Based on similar stories, I suspect that a lot of the people in these positions have the experience that they get away with almost everything (e.g. someone else is made the fall-guy, or things are swept under the carpet).
I think prison time is the minimum one should expect from this behavior. That's what astounds me about this story.
Ok, let's assume you're a sociopath or at least a bully and you believe this action is justified or appropriate in response to some offense. You're already well outside of normal behavior, but let's take that as as given.
We're still talking about six or more wealthy, middle-aged people with astoundingly good jobs (in the grand scheme of things) being willing to risk their livelihood, their reputation, their wealth and their freedom over "someone online said something bad about the company I work for"? Even if what the couple published in their newsletter was invalid (and there's no suggestion that it is), we're talking about throwing your life - and that of your immediate family - away to "punish" an Internet troll.
This wasn't just some rash decision, this was methodically planned and executed over several weeks or months. They bought plane tickets. Practice for crimes in the company parking lot. Set up fake social media accounts. Got pre-paid credit cards. Imagine sleeping on this decision 90 times over and still thinking it's a good idea?
And the icing on the cake is how could they remotely think they would be able to get away with this? Multiple _death threats_ over weeks or months over "don't say bad things about ebay" and they thought the police might _not_ take a good hard look inside the company?
How did they think this would play out?
This is so crazy. It's cult-like behavior.
Ok, let's assume you're a sociopath or at least a bully and you believe this action is justified or appropriate in response to some offense. You're already well outside of normal behavior, but let's take that as as given.
We're still talking about six or more wealthy, middle-aged people with astoundingly good jobs (in the grand scheme of things) being willing to risk their livelihood, their reputation, their wealth and their freedom over "someone online said something bad about the company I work for"? Even if what the couple published in their newsletter was invalid (and there's no suggestion that it is), we're talking about throwing your life - and that of your immediate family - away to "punish" an Internet troll.
This wasn't just some rash decision, this was methodically planned and executed over several weeks or months. They bought plane tickets. Practice for crimes in the company parking lot. Set up fake social media accounts. Got pre-paid credit cards. Imagine sleeping on this decision 90 times over and still thinking it's a good idea?
And the icing on the cake is how could they remotely think they would be able to get away with this? Multiple _death threats_ over weeks or months over "don't say bad things about ebay" and they thought the police might _not_ take a good hard look inside the company?
How did they think this would play out?
This is so crazy. It's cult-like behavior.
>This is so crazy. It's cult-like behavior.
It's like they read up on how Scientology treats people critical of it and thought "that sounds like a perfectly sane thing to do".
It's like they read up on how Scientology treats people critical of it and thought "that sounds like a perfectly sane thing to do".
Walter Mitty-ness too, no doubt. Mayne some of them wanted to be in the CIA as kids?
and why not? scientology is getting away with it and making millions.
And not paying taxes while doing so
> How did they think this would play out?
I think it's worth going further down this line of thinking.
One possibility is that they thought that this was expected of them as part of their jobs, that this would help them in their careers, and that (based on observation of others and prior personal experience) they would not have any legal repercussions. They probably didn't jump into doing just this and then getting caught. Instead they probably got to where they were by doing things like this, and it had worked very well for them until this point. They may have even have learned their techniques from their mentors in the company. They very well may have gotten away with (and been rewarded for) worse. And there may well be many more like them who continue doing the same (and worse).
Alternatively, all 6 might be really stupid despite their apparent business success.
Which seems more likely? Personally, I think it's unlikely that they got to where they were by being stupid.
I think it's worth going further down this line of thinking.
One possibility is that they thought that this was expected of them as part of their jobs, that this would help them in their careers, and that (based on observation of others and prior personal experience) they would not have any legal repercussions. They probably didn't jump into doing just this and then getting caught. Instead they probably got to where they were by doing things like this, and it had worked very well for them until this point. They may have even have learned their techniques from their mentors in the company. They very well may have gotten away with (and been rewarded for) worse. And there may well be many more like them who continue doing the same (and worse).
Alternatively, all 6 might be really stupid despite their apparent business success.
Which seems more likely? Personally, I think it's unlikely that they got to where they were by being stupid.
You don't have to be stupid to do stupid things. There have been through history occasional mass delusions. One numbering six individuals whose outcome was conspiracy to harass economic enemies would not be particularly notable among this set.
I mean, you could say the same thing about the CIA, FBI, etc. I agree with you it seems crazy, but it's not cult-like. It's just human-like. People identify with an in-group and demonize an out-group. They sometimes do crazy things in order to reinforce this distinction.
It's just who we are.
It's just who we are.
which is exactly why we should try and make sure that we don't have in-groups that have too much wealth or power.
How do we do that? What you're saying is a common tenant of anarchism, but unfortunately, anarchy is unstable. Groups will merge and power will be concentrated until there exists an equilibrium.
The point is to be the counter-weight to the process you describe (which I agree is what happens). It's not that we can banish in-groups or concentration and power, it's rather that we /can/ put our efforts in preventing or mediating this. And this very effort is what leads to whatever equilibrium we end up with.
Consider the current discussion surrounding police brutality in te US, and the racial aspect of it.
I don't think anyone expects we'll have 'no police' or 'no racism'. But like in any negotiation, I think it's sensible for the starting point to be more than you hope for, which in the case of many protestors might be operationalized as 'abolish the police' (which sounds quite anarchistic), and in the case of 'the powers that be' might be limp-dicked stuff like "let's just put more camera's on cops' attire but no legal consequences if the footage is lost".
Consider the current discussion surrounding police brutality in te US, and the racial aspect of it.
I don't think anyone expects we'll have 'no police' or 'no racism'. But like in any negotiation, I think it's sensible for the starting point to be more than you hope for, which in the case of many protestors might be operationalized as 'abolish the police' (which sounds quite anarchistic), and in the case of 'the powers that be' might be limp-dicked stuff like "let's just put more camera's on cops' attire but no legal consequences if the footage is lost".
And threatening to go after the WSJ next!
I can only imagine journalists clapping their hands with glee at the idea of a big company trying to intimidate them with high school antics, all for investigative reporting.
I can only imagine journalists clapping their hands with glee at the idea of a big company trying to intimidate them with high school antics, all for investigative reporting.
[deleted]
> But who on earth could have thought that morals notwithstanding it was even a vaguely sensible thing to do
They should be criticized for their morals, not their stupidity!
They should be criticized for their morals, not their stupidity!
Wild. I'm like 99% positive I know the couple and the newsletter they targeted, because I used to work for an ecommerce company that also came under fire from said couple semi-frequently.
Of course, like adults, we just rolled our eyes a little bit when it was particularly over-the-top and tried to use our rational heads to determine whether the criticism was warranted or not. Truthfully, I think they kept us in check and I'm glad they exist.
If we had done anything even close to this, we would've been fired immediately. To be even more blunt, I think I would've been fired for interacting with them AT ALL, even just a strongly-worded email.
Just a little wild to see how differently people react to the same exact situation.
Of course, like adults, we just rolled our eyes a little bit when it was particularly over-the-top and tried to use our rational heads to determine whether the criticism was warranted or not. Truthfully, I think they kept us in check and I'm glad they exist.
If we had done anything even close to this, we would've been fired immediately. To be even more blunt, I think I would've been fired for interacting with them AT ALL, even just a strongly-worded email.
Just a little wild to see how differently people react to the same exact situation.
Not even mentioning that one of those charged used to be a police captain...
...but what the hell is wrong with people that they take their job so seriously that they'd personally harass the people who run a newsletter that's critical of the company they work for?
And that six of them would do it together?
There are no lives at stake here. Nobody's curing cancer or saving democracy here, where maybe I could at least understand how somebody might take criticism as something immoral that needed to be fought against, even if I deeply disagreed with the method.
But I just can't even fathom why these six people even cared enough in the first place about some newsletter criticizing them. Where are their psychological work-life boundaries? Why would they even care?
This is just so beyond bizarre. It's like some kind of pathological level of psychological identification with your company. Your job is just a job, folks.
...but what the hell is wrong with people that they take their job so seriously that they'd personally harass the people who run a newsletter that's critical of the company they work for?
And that six of them would do it together?
There are no lives at stake here. Nobody's curing cancer or saving democracy here, where maybe I could at least understand how somebody might take criticism as something immoral that needed to be fought against, even if I deeply disagreed with the method.
But I just can't even fathom why these six people even cared enough in the first place about some newsletter criticizing them. Where are their psychological work-life boundaries? Why would they even care?
This is just so beyond bizarre. It's like some kind of pathological level of psychological identification with your company. Your job is just a job, folks.
I agree, this is bizarre and disturbing. It was not done by a rogue employee, but rather a coordinated effort.
> a systematic campaign fueled by the resources of a Fortune 500 company to emotionally and psychologically terrorize this middle aged couple in Natick, with the goal of deterring them from writing bad things online about eBay.
What jumped out for me, was that several of the criminals were involved in policing, security, intelligence, surveillance, and "special operations".
It's not hard to imagine that there's a corrupt and unethical streak in this subculture, since they are above the law in some sense. It's only a natural step, to abuse their power and treat the public with contempt or disdain.
> a systematic campaign fueled by the resources of a Fortune 500 company to emotionally and psychologically terrorize this middle aged couple in Natick, with the goal of deterring them from writing bad things online about eBay.
What jumped out for me, was that several of the criminals were involved in policing, security, intelligence, surveillance, and "special operations".
It's not hard to imagine that there's a corrupt and unethical streak in this subculture, since they are above the law in some sense. It's only a natural step, to abuse their power and treat the public with contempt or disdain.
not excusing this disgusting behaviour in the least, but I suspect having no relationship whatsoever with the victims helps them dehumanize their targets. People do and say things on the internet they would never conceive of attempting in person, in part because they think they can get away with it and partially because there's no visual linkage between their actions and the pain they cause.
It's not so much they think they can get away with it as the dehumanization is sufficient to override their moral apprehensions.
I dunno. I've kind of found in my experience that some of the most unethical people are precisely the "it's just a job" types. They take that viewpoint to that extreme end of the spectrum. It's not only "just a job," it's "just a game," to be won or lost, through any means necessary. This is not a deep emotional connection with the company where they personally feel hurt at the criticism, it's a complete emotional detachment from reality. The criticism is just one input into the system to be dealt with in whatever way improves the company's position (and thus, their own) the quickest. The company is a means to an end (power over others, money).
I’ve noticed this is sometimes true for die-hard company people. Some companies love workers that will make tremendous sacrifices for them and commit all of their personal energy on the job.
It’s certainly not true of all who do this, but I’ve definitely seen cases where an employee is asked to do something and they see it as a career-changing opportunity to get close to an executive or something. People will do some crazy stuff to demonstrate loyalty. Companies that facilitate those kinds of culture are way less shy about bending rules and eschewing ethics.
It’s certainly not true of all who do this, but I’ve definitely seen cases where an employee is asked to do something and they see it as a career-changing opportunity to get close to an executive or something. People will do some crazy stuff to demonstrate loyalty. Companies that facilitate those kinds of culture are way less shy about bending rules and eschewing ethics.
"The company is a means to an end (power over others..."
Cops
Cops
You seem to be making the assumption that this activity was _not_ their job, and that they were acting badly independently. Based on the possibility that the initial call to action may reach all the way up to the C-level executives (Two unnamed executive are included in the complaint that had roles above Baugh), perhaps this was _explicitly_ their job?
There is no job description that legitimizes illegal activity. There's a host of specific regulations that dictate the job of a C-level in a publicly traded firm is _explicitly_ not to behave this way. It's weird you think there's a corporate way to handwave this.
I didn’t take the parent comment as “handwaving” anything. The comment was exploring the possibility that higher level company execs were involved, but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence to support this.
There is evidence now as per new eBay release.
I didn't mean to be ambiguous. There is NO excuse for this behaviour, and it's maddening to me that any executive would engage in this kind of activity.
My point was that the team may have been built explicitly to perform illegal activities. The fact that this is repugnant was, I thought, obvious.
That's the most bizarre thing about a bizarre episode. I certainly certainly certainly don't endorse someone embezzling or blackmailing or insider trading but I can at least understand the motivations however much I disapprove of them.
But risking your career/potentially ruining your life because someone criticized your employer in a newsletter (or whatever happened exactly)? That's something you rebut in print or maybe get a lawyer involved if you think there are material/malicious falsehoods. The head of Communications must have skipped that class when they took communications in college.
But risking your career/potentially ruining your life because someone criticized your employer in a newsletter (or whatever happened exactly)? That's something you rebut in print or maybe get a lawyer involved if you think there are material/malicious falsehoods. The head of Communications must have skipped that class when they took communications in college.
Linking this here for those of us that don't know or remember what a newsletter is >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsletter
They do actually still exist. And many are quite good.
> Not even mentioning that one of those charged used to be a police captain...
i.e someone used to committing illegal intimitation with impunity, while being accustomed to responding to criticism with tear gas?
i.e someone used to committing illegal intimitation with impunity, while being accustomed to responding to criticism with tear gas?
[deleted]
I’m thinking Hall’s character on Billions might be more than a Hollywood fantasy.
Getting your hands dirty on behalf of megalomaniac titans of industry can be “just a job” too. What’s the point of being rich, if not to bring CIA-level resources to bear on your personal dramas? Worked for Ghosn.
I doubt it’s personal for the security professionals. In fact I bet they’re rolling their eyes at “the client” when he’s not around. All it takes is one crazy executive.
Getting your hands dirty on behalf of megalomaniac titans of industry can be “just a job” too. What’s the point of being rich, if not to bring CIA-level resources to bear on your personal dramas? Worked for Ghosn.
I doubt it’s personal for the security professionals. In fact I bet they’re rolling their eyes at “the client” when he’s not around. All it takes is one crazy executive.
[deleted]
> Why would they even care?
The behavior reminds me of how Holmes & Theranos behaved and responded to criticism and things she didn't like.
Throwing out an opinion: I'd suspect the primary instigator is a sociopath and started the process, then roped the others in one by one. What's described in that nine minute video, is so far outside the realm of normal behavior, the person that started this is probably severely behaviorally defective.
It reeks of sociopathic behavior, including the way there was an attempt to then find & set up candidates to take the fall back in California, as the Natick police began investigating.
The behavior reminds me of how Holmes & Theranos behaved and responded to criticism and things she didn't like.
Throwing out an opinion: I'd suspect the primary instigator is a sociopath and started the process, then roped the others in one by one. What's described in that nine minute video, is so far outside the realm of normal behavior, the person that started this is probably severely behaviorally defective.
It reeks of sociopathic behavior, including the way there was an attempt to then find & set up candidates to take the fall back in California, as the Natick police began investigating.
Let's assume they are all guilty for 100% of what was reported. I wonder what other things may have occurred unreported?
Well, I'd think for a good share of employees, outside the minimum wage earners, their job might be more than just a job. Even if they just put in the contractually agreed upon time, that'll be a significant part of their life. And it doesn't need co-dependence or the equivalent of Stockholm syndrome or "buyer's remorse" to explain a willingness to associate with the employer. It certainly helps with the workplace ambiance. That doesn't mean they typically are willing to commit a crime or go full-on-psychopath as here.
Of course. You can have healthy emotional involvement with your job while still setting healthy boundaries. That's what maturity is.
You ought to take pride on a job well-done, enjoy being part of a team with coworkers, and feel that your company does something positive. An online auction site is a positive thing, one reason among many being that it promotes reuse rather than throwing things out.
But to harass someone, to break laws? That's beyond the healthy boundary. That's why boundaries exist. That's gone to unhealthy self-identification with the company. Which is what baffles me so much.
When people go from "it's more than a job" to "I'll commit crimes for this company", it's baffling and scary.
You ought to take pride on a job well-done, enjoy being part of a team with coworkers, and feel that your company does something positive. An online auction site is a positive thing, one reason among many being that it promotes reuse rather than throwing things out.
But to harass someone, to break laws? That's beyond the healthy boundary. That's why boundaries exist. That's gone to unhealthy self-identification with the company. Which is what baffles me so much.
When people go from "it's more than a job" to "I'll commit crimes for this company", it's baffling and scary.
http://mycrains.crainsnewyork.com/40under40/profiles/2005/de...
Regarding "Executive 1", it supports your point -- no work/life boundary.
In my mind, if a man was truly concerned about how others view his character, as reflected by his work, he would not join a "tech" company! :)
He will not be charged despite ordering the harassment. I wonder what the blog author thinks about that.
Regarding "Executive 1", it supports your point -- no work/life boundary.
In my mind, if a man was truly concerned about how others view his character, as reflected by his work, he would not join a "tech" company! :)
He will not be charged despite ordering the harassment. I wonder what the blog author thinks about that.
> wrong with people that they take their job so seriously
It could be that, a fanatical devotion to the mission that goes beyond all reason.
But another possibility is that there is something different wrong with them where these sorts of tactics (and risks) don't seem that outlandish to them. Maybe for them, it doesn't require devotion to escalate things to this level. This may not be the first time they've done stuff like this.
It could be that, a fanatical devotion to the mission that goes beyond all reason.
But another possibility is that there is something different wrong with them where these sorts of tactics (and risks) don't seem that outlandish to them. Maybe for them, it doesn't require devotion to escalate things to this level. This may not be the first time they've done stuff like this.
I can totally see this starting as a lunch joke, or meme email, and escalating from there with one of the individuals going overboard and the rest lacking assertiveness/decency to break it up.
EDIT: Never mind, Seems orders came all the way from CEO :o holy shit this is toxic and expensive.
EDIT: Never mind, Seems orders came all the way from CEO :o holy shit this is toxic and expensive.
Isn't this like high school bullying, just with more resources at their disposal?
You should listen to the allegations listed in the press conference. This goes well beyond "bullying" in both scope and severity. They travelled cross-country to try to plant a GPS tracker on the couple's car for example, and that's honestly among the _least_ egregious and extreme actions they took.
>Isn't this like high school bullying, just with more resources at their disposal?
If bullying includes breaking and entering the target's garage to install a surveillance device, I guess.
If bullying includes breaking and entering the target's garage to install a surveillance device, I guess.
Maybe...if a carbomb is like vandalism, just with more resources at their disposal?
"...but what the hell is wrong with people that they take their job so seriously that they'd personally harass the people who run a newsletter that's critical of the company they work for?
"
I think this is the level of obsession and craziness that makes people successful. I read quite a few biographies and it seems to me that a lot of famous or super successful people are very willing to do bad stuff if someone gets in their way. they want to win at all cost.
I think this is the level of obsession and craziness that makes people successful. I read quite a few biographies and it seems to me that a lot of famous or super successful people are very willing to do bad stuff if someone gets in their way. they want to win at all cost.
I suspect you read quite a few biographies and liked that a few of them are sociopaths, identified with them, and you want to use that to justify sociopathic behavior under the guise of "it's what successful people do and I want to be successful".
I don't identify with them. It's an observation.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding job-titles, but how does a 32 y.o. become the senior manager of global intelligence and moreover a 26 y.o. the company’s manager of global intelligence center. I mean the job descriptions sound like their are one level below the directors (also considering the two directors involved). Considering that the 26 y.o. was 25 last year, she would have been out of uni maybe 2 years ago? Is that normal?
The “manager” and “senior manager” titles are IC roles. I’ve seen plenty of people land a “manager” role right out of school. And “senior manager” is a short jump.
And if the team isn’t very big, those ICs report into a Director. Otherwise their may be an Associate Director in between.
And if the team isn’t very big, those ICs report into a Director. Otherwise their may be an Associate Director in between.
Maybe they were hired because they would blindly follow orders.
A lot of times if you are willing and able to do things that other people can't, you can get quickly promoted. If you are seen as the kind of person who could wage an effective terrorism campaign against a random couple in Massachusetts because they wrote mean things about your Fortune 500 employer, you are in a very small club and you will be sought out when you are needed.
"things that other people can't"
I would phrase it as "things other people can't or won't".
Jim Cramer wrote a book in which he described how someone told him he could have a job if he would just "go in that office over there and fire that guy". He did.
I would phrase it as "things other people can't or won't".
Jim Cramer wrote a book in which he described how someone told him he could have a job if he would just "go in that office over there and fire that guy". He did.
The titles of the "executives" from the article:
* director of safety and security
* director of global resiliency
* senior manager of global intelligence
* manager of global intelligence center (GIC)
* contractor who worked as an intelligence analyst
* senior manager
None of these are what I'd consider an executive, as titles go, at major tech companies. The highest ranking title (director) is solidly middle-management.
* director of safety and security
* director of global resiliency
* senior manager of global intelligence
* manager of global intelligence center (GIC)
* contractor who worked as an intelligence analyst
* senior manager
None of these are what I'd consider an executive, as titles go, at major tech companies. The highest ranking title (director) is solidly middle-management.
Connections.
The majority of promotions to management or senior management levels that I've seen in SV (including when I worked at eBay) were the result of knowing someone with the power to make it happen for you.
The majority of promotions to management or senior management levels that I've seen in SV (including when I worked at eBay) were the result of knowing someone with the power to make it happen for you.
IC -> manager -> director -> vp
4ish years to promote up, especially the first two level levels. Velocity isn't all that crazy.
4ish years to promote up, especially the first two level levels. Velocity isn't all that crazy.
Yeah maybe at a small company, but not one the size of eBay.
Is eBay that undesirable a place to work for now in SV?
I had a (thankfully) short stint there as part of an organizational mess that swept me up a few years ago: it was a very painful experience. Clearcase, old undocumented code that you were not allowed to reformat because it would generate too many diffs, database as a message bus, etc. The day I left was one of my happiest ones that year.
That would explain why I haven't seen any memorable product innovation from eBay in a decade...
I tried to sell something last week, and assumed that it would be a 30 second affair of "snap photo, set reserve price, done". No, no. We can't have things be this simple... Have fun clicking through a massive list of options and settings... By the time you've got to the end of that form you wish you just took the item to the dump!
I tried to sell something last week, and assumed that it would be a 30 second affair of "snap photo, set reserve price, done". No, no. We can't have things be this simple... Have fun clicking through a massive list of options and settings... By the time you've got to the end of that form you wish you just took the item to the dump!
Plus the anti-seller bias generally ensures that a bad buyer can ruin your day. I used to sell my old electronics on eBay a lot but recently have used it as a last resort if Craigslist and Swappa didn't work out.
I used to work at ebay (not in the US). The company has quite tolerant culture in terms of several things which any respectable public should never tolerate[sexual harassment, use of racial slurs, etc...] There were also anonymous complaints which essentially turned into a witch hunt led by the team leads to figure out who complained. Most of my colleagues were super nice and excellent professionally but those 1-2 despicable human beings and the tolerant behaviour made the environment toxic as hell.
Holy shit this is nuclear. I shy away from hyperbolic statements, but this is front-page news and there will/should be longer-term fallout. This is an example of high-tech corporations using their corporate might to terrorize not just private individuals, but individuals engaged in journalism. The plausible deniability is gone; these were C-suite people and entire departments were involved. NEWS people are going to be all over this at multiple angles: Big-tech uses private data to terrorize, intimidate, and control. When big-tech goes after small-time journalists. Profiles of executives and the fallout for their careers. You can bet there will be a multi-million dollar settlement from eBay. This story has legs.
Sounds like the content the couple published about eBay really struck a nerve. I would like to see that content gain more widespread attention as a result, since it may be something worth looking into more closely.
Does anyone have original sources of the content? If it was linked in the article I missed it.
EDIT: another commentor posted a link to their website, but there are many articles involving eBay. Makes me wonder which ones specifically caused the most friction?
https://www.ecommercebytes.com/
Does anyone have original sources of the content? If it was linked in the article I missed it.
EDIT: another commentor posted a link to their website, but there are many articles involving eBay. Makes me wonder which ones specifically caused the most friction?
https://www.ecommercebytes.com/
I read through a few recent posts (trying to understand how this absolutely bizarre story could've come about) and it seems like the current point of contention is "Managed Payments", which appears to be a euphemism for ebay raising fees later this year. However, the longevity of the newsletter and the viciousness of the harassment make me assume this must be a personal issue.
Next big challenge for these folks: Slashdot sues them for stealing their .css file, and Geocities piles on with a snarky amicus brief.
There's a whole subculture of the internet obsessed with "gang stalking" and they're usually dismissed as just being paranoid. I wonder if at least a small number of cases are actually occurring, and we should be taking the whole thing more seriously...
I mean, the facts in this case are more or less the same as what people describe as "gang stalking".
I mean, the facts in this case are more or less the same as what people describe as "gang stalking".
Honestly, if I knew this couple and they tried to tell me even half of what had happened I would have thought they were absolutely bonkers. How do you even make that phone call to police? Knowing you’re going to sound like a crazy person. I can’t even imagine the stress they must have felt because there is no chance detectives believed their story right out of the gate.
> How do you even make that phone call to police?
One of the incidents was when they caught people breaking into their garage to plant a GPS tracker on their car. This seems like a good inroads to the other charges.
One of the incidents was when they caught people breaking into their garage to plant a GPS tracker on their car. This seems like a good inroads to the other charges.
created this throwaway to say: I worked for a month at eBay and it was an utter shitshow. I came in to replace a guy who built a prototype app without version control, which wrote uploaded files onto the same hard drive that the app ran on. first thing I did is I put the code into git on my local machine. a few days after that, the hard drive had too many files uploaded, and it overwrote the code base.
the guy who left set the project up to fail, not realizing he had done so. total unprofessional BS. the only reason the app could be restored at all is because I noticed this rookie mistake and put everything under version control immediately, on my first day. (the guy who left had turned in his work machine and it was probably already wiped.) did they thank me? no. did they at least speak to me in a professional manner? also no.
just one data point, of course, but my impression of eBay was that it was totally toxic and not a place where managers needed to know anything at all about what they were doing in order to get ahead.
the guy who left set the project up to fail, not realizing he had done so. total unprofessional BS. the only reason the app could be restored at all is because I noticed this rookie mistake and put everything under version control immediately, on my first day. (the guy who left had turned in his work machine and it was probably already wiped.) did they thank me? no. did they at least speak to me in a professional manner? also no.
just one data point, of course, but my impression of eBay was that it was totally toxic and not a place where managers needed to know anything at all about what they were doing in order to get ahead.
Were you at least given a stern talk about the wasteful nature of version control software?
Two of the people charged were the former director of safety and security and the former eBay director of global resiliency. This is one of those cases where having a ham sandwich in the position would've been better.
But seriously, those officials were supposed to save the company from this: literally their job. They should have been bringing down the banhammer on anyone even considering this destructive crime - not perpetrating it.
But seriously, those officials were supposed to save the company from this: literally their job. They should have been bringing down the banhammer on anyone even considering this destructive crime - not perpetrating it.
"literally their job"
The first thing I thought of was the recent case where Apple's executive in charge of insider trading rule compliance was indicted for insider trading.
The first thing I thought of was the recent case where Apple's executive in charge of insider trading rule compliance was indicted for insider trading.
Someone please help me understand how a small 2 person newsletter run out of a home in the suburbs was able to provoke high ranking and educated (one is a Columbia Law School JD) tech executives into seeing absolute red to the point of commiting brazen and shockingly criminal black-ops style missions that seem more reasonably explained by having psychosis or mental illness than taking your job too seriously.
Did they simply think they wouldn't get caught, blinded by their privilege and ability to get basically anything they want in life with little consequence given their wealth and status/power ?
Strong God complex vibes from the executives and Stockholm Syndrome behaviors from their subordinates. (Read the actual court filing, the WhatsApp convos between the individual are wild...)
Did they simply think they wouldn't get caught, blinded by their privilege and ability to get basically anything they want in life with little consequence given their wealth and status/power ?
Strong God complex vibes from the executives and Stockholm Syndrome behaviors from their subordinates. (Read the actual court filing, the WhatsApp convos between the individual are wild...)
>Popp was eBay’s senior manager of global intelligence, Stockwell was the company’s manager of global intelligence center (GIC), Zea was a contractor who worked as an intelligence analyst within the GIC, and Gilbert was a senior manager of special operations for eBay’s global security team.
Maybe hiring dirty psycho ex-cops and giving them carte blanch authority is just eBay's approach to "Artificial Intelligence"?
Maybe hiring dirty psycho ex-cops and giving them carte blanch authority is just eBay's approach to "Artificial Intelligence"?
> “I don’t think I would characterize the conduct as rogue, because as seen in the complaint, the directive to do something about this goes pretty high up the chain within eBay,” said Lelling. The couple then received a host of deliveries aimed at intimidating them. “These deliveries included fly larvae and live spiders, a box of live cockroaches, a sympathy wreath on the occasion of the death of a loved one, a book of advice on how to survive the death of a spouse, pornography mailed to their next door neighbors but in the couple’s names, Halloween masks featuring the face of the bloody pig, and the pig fetus which was ordered, but after an inquiry by the supplier, thankfully, wasn’t ever sent,” Lelling said.
Some of these things basically constitute death threats, and the orders to do it came from up top. What is the meaningful difference between eBay and a mafia? That eBay doesn't make good on their threats (as far as we know)? The whole organization should be dismantled for this.
Some of these things basically constitute death threats, and the orders to do it came from up top. What is the meaningful difference between eBay and a mafia? That eBay doesn't make good on their threats (as far as we know)? The whole organization should be dismantled for this.
I have long thought there should be a "death penalty" for corporations.
The "execution" would be forced replacement of the entire C-suite. Additionally, the CEO would be barred from the C-suite or Board positions forever.
This punishment would be reserved for corporations that knowingly kill people, such as pharma pushing opioids or Boeing hiding flaws in their planes.
The "execution" would be forced replacement of the entire C-suite. Additionally, the CEO would be barred from the C-suite or Board positions forever.
This punishment would be reserved for corporations that knowingly kill people, such as pharma pushing opioids or Boeing hiding flaws in their planes.
"Corporations are people" comes up quit a bit, but corporations don't have three strikes laws that sequester their life for multiple decades.
That being said this sounds like something the people involved should be held accountable for.
That being said this sounds like something the people involved should be held accountable for.
That cliche complaint about corporations are people forgets that it is better thought of as "people via transitive property".
And this sort of misconduct is more a personal conspiracy than company malfeasance. The shareholders would be well within their rights to sue all of the executives involved.
And this sort of misconduct is more a personal conspiracy than company malfeasance. The shareholders would be well within their rights to sue all of the executives involved.
In cases of serious fraud the SEC does sometimes bar individuals from being an officer or director of any publicly traded company.
There should also be the death penalty (no quotation marks) for sufficiently evil corporate misconduct. Not a case like this, but something like Purdue Pharmaceuticals knowingly creating the American opioid crisis should be more than enough destruction to justify lethal injections for the top principals of the company.
Needs clawback of golden parachutes otherwise there's little risk involved in sociopathic management.
[deleted]
Public corporations grant their investors and executive management immunity against such charges unless it can be traced directly to their involvement and even then, most of the time someone is made into a scapegoat and hung. Much of this is out of necessity. The problem stems from privatizing the profits and socializing the losses; people want accountability.
I think the correct approach is if a corporation wants to be a c-corp, they need to pay 2\3rds profits through approved accounting mechanisms to non-management staff which can include things like company stock, and should include requirements about openness of the books with staff. The "Public" seldom owns a company, and I am sure the public is very interested in making sure other people are rewarded for their hard work vs investorship.
What you end up with is people have disposable income to invest in things they care about, and thus, the executive management is motivated not to do BS crap like this. It does make it more difficult to get large sources of capital together, but it also forces companies to the whim of people and investorship and employee's which is a much more tenable balance.
I think the correct approach is if a corporation wants to be a c-corp, they need to pay 2\3rds profits through approved accounting mechanisms to non-management staff which can include things like company stock, and should include requirements about openness of the books with staff. The "Public" seldom owns a company, and I am sure the public is very interested in making sure other people are rewarded for their hard work vs investorship.
What you end up with is people have disposable income to invest in things they care about, and thus, the executive management is motivated not to do BS crap like this. It does make it more difficult to get large sources of capital together, but it also forces companies to the whim of people and investorship and employee's which is a much more tenable balance.
Perhaps shareholders would take their oversight responsibilities seriously if there were real financial consequences.
In the movies, when a multi-billion dollar company seeks to destroy a rival, they hire some sort of intimidating "fixer" played by Liam Nielson who hacks their bank accounts to destroy their finacnes, frames them for crimes they didn't commit and murders their pets.
In real life, apparently, a team of six people basically come up with a bunch of ideas that wouldn't be out of place in a prank war between rival college fraternities that's gone a little too far.
In real life, apparently, a team of six people basically come up with a bunch of ideas that wouldn't be out of place in a prank war between rival college fraternities that's gone a little too far.
With every day that goes by, the more I become convinced that Burn After Reading was a documentary.
sending pornography to thier neighbours with their names on it is one (very small) step above swatting them, IMO.
If there's any justice (1) people will do time and (2) they will win a huge civil suit against eBay. At least the latter is likely if not the former...
If there's any justice (1) people will do time and (2) they will win a huge civil suit against eBay. At least the latter is likely if not the former...
I wouldn't call the difference very small...
Unsolicited porn is mildly embarrassing at best. SWATting almost always results in _at least_ weeks, months or a lifetime of PTSD thereafter, bodily injuries from the force of being physically restrained even if not resisting, and significant property damage running into the thousands of dollars. If you have any dogs that will try to protect their family, the police do not have protocols for containing them, they simply shoot them. SWAT missions can also end in the deaths of suspects due to over-zealous officers or poor communication in the heat of the moment.
I know which one I would take if given the choice.
Unsolicited porn is mildly embarrassing at best. SWATting almost always results in _at least_ weeks, months or a lifetime of PTSD thereafter, bodily injuries from the force of being physically restrained even if not resisting, and significant property damage running into the thousands of dollars. If you have any dogs that will try to protect their family, the police do not have protocols for containing them, they simply shoot them. SWAT missions can also end in the deaths of suspects due to over-zealous officers or poor communication in the heat of the moment.
I know which one I would take if given the choice.
I understand what you are both saying. Think it kinda depends on your part of the world too. My home couldn't be deeper into the US Bible Belt. If my family were harassed by a company like this, we would become outcasts very very quickly. Yeah, I'd rather take this over an actual SWAT, but both would have severe and long term consequences.
It is still pretty damn bad, sexual harassment and libel but miles away from SWATing. That is essentially attempted murder and a credible attempt to try to inflict permanent mental damage.
The fact that the police are so trigger happy and bad at assessing the scene for consistency to be a more reliable and safer option than trying to hire a hitman has long been an obvious sign of police reform being desperately needed for years.
The fact that the police are so trigger happy and bad at assessing the scene for consistency to be a more reliable and safer option than trying to hire a hitman has long been an obvious sign of police reform being desperately needed for years.
In the movies it also often backfires (Michael Clayton) with George Clooney, our fixer, having moral compass after all.
This situation mirrors that of Enemy of the State(1998) pretty well, except for the end. Irl important wealthy people are never punished.
This situation mirrors that of Enemy of the State(1998) pretty well, except for the end. Irl important wealthy people are never punished.
For what it's worth, at least they gave the eBay vendor who mailed the bloody pig head mask to the victim a great review: "A++++ Great seller and fast shipping! I hope to do business with you again."
Anyone know the blog/newsletter that was victim to this? I want to go read their stuff. Clearly it’s good stuff if the company was this threatened
I looked on reddit -- seems like it is https://www.ecommercebytes.com/ and maybe a sub-thing "auctionbytes"
also looking for this but haven't found it yet
My experience as a buyer and seller on eBay has been going downhill the last few years. Reading this story sickens me, and makes me not want to do business on their platform anymore.
I hope they nail the top execs who encouraged the behavior. Even in the unlikely-looking scenario they weren't complicit, they ought to be fired for allowing such an unprofessional culture to fester under their watch.
I hope they nail the top execs who encouraged the behavior. Even in the unlikely-looking scenario they weren't complicit, they ought to be fired for allowing such an unprofessional culture to fester under their watch.
My wife and I have a fledgling reselling business on the side, and Mercari is a far superior experience in every way. It's not as full featured as eBay, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.
How is your experience with buyer disputes? That's the biggest issue I hear about on ebay
Haven't had many, because they have a stronger policy. The item is tracked, and if it's delivered to the proper address, the only way they can get a refund is either for damage or for not as described. Buyer submits proof to Mercari, and they make the decision.
How big is the audience compared to eBay?
Statistics I've seen say there are about 15M monthly users, but not all are in the US (it started in Japan about 7 years ago). Mercari says it has about 45M downloads in the US.
https://www.mercari.com/about/
eBay has about 10x that number of "active" users
https://www.statista.com/statistics/242235/number-of-ebays-t...
https://www.mercari.com/about/
eBay has about 10x that number of "active" users
https://www.statista.com/statistics/242235/number-of-ebays-t...
I gave my first negative review to a seller ever last month after having been a member of eBay since a year or two after its launch. The item shipped was literally broken. Rather than fuss with the return process, I just left them a negative review and repaired it myself. For years now I've been expecting something like this to happen with an eBay transaction, so I just figured I was due.
In some weird way the whole story is a pretty big acclamation for the newsletter though. I mean if you get directors of a multi-billion dollar company going after you personally for what you write.
Companies building 'intelligence' and external-facing security wings have large potential for abuse and need to be very careful.
Just like big private tech companies wading into censorship and politics, you have to have strong values from leadership and a strong internal cultural to prevent any sort of abuse of power. These sorts of things are minefields.
One of the most common forms of abuse is when it's used like some personal weapon against pet enemies - merely because executives or employees don't like certain groups or want to silence them. Which seems to be the case here.
It's a difficult balance, so if it's going to exist at all they need to invest heavily in making sure they are acting ethically at all times. Either bring the clamps down or get rid of it entirely.
Just like big private tech companies wading into censorship and politics, you have to have strong values from leadership and a strong internal cultural to prevent any sort of abuse of power. These sorts of things are minefields.
One of the most common forms of abuse is when it's used like some personal weapon against pet enemies - merely because executives or employees don't like certain groups or want to silence them. Which seems to be the case here.
It's a difficult balance, so if it's going to exist at all they need to invest heavily in making sure they are acting ethically at all times. Either bring the clamps down or get rid of it entirely.
Pornography mailed to neighbors...bloody pig mask...box delivered w/ live cockroaches....This story is clickbait GOLD
Ebay third party developer here. The couple in question are the Steiner’s who run the ecommercebytes and auctionbytes blogs.
I don’t advocate, at all, what the ebay execs did, but I will say that the steiners are completely vindictive people who use their platform to hurt people they don’t agree with. They are not innocent, and their so called journalism isn’t anything more than hate mongering.
Again, I don’t think they should be harassed, but in essence, they get away with harassment everyday. Their blog is full of negativity and people constantly berating ebay employees.
I don’t advocate, at all, what the ebay execs did, but I will say that the steiners are completely vindictive people who use their platform to hurt people they don’t agree with. They are not innocent, and their so called journalism isn’t anything more than hate mongering.
Again, I don’t think they should be harassed, but in essence, they get away with harassment everyday. Their blog is full of negativity and people constantly berating ebay employees.
Can you link to some of these extremely negative articles on their blogs please?
Please post some instances of their "berating ebay employees".
How much has to go wrong in a company to arrive at a situation like this. That's the craziest company story I ever read.
From The Verge: https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/15/21291666/ebay-employees-a...
From The Verge: https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/15/21291666/ebay-employees-a...
Does anyone know the newsletter/blog posts that caused these employees to retaliate like this? Obviously no matter what they said this behavior is 100% not acceptable under any circumstances; these 6 employees are definitely in psychopath territory. However, I'm curious as to what exactly triggered this kind of retaliation.
The strategy by ebay here was less dumb than the article makes it sound.
They were harassing the victims while pretending to be disgruntled ebay sellers. Their plan was to step in, as ebay, and help track down and stop the harassment, thereby earning the victims trust and goodwill.
They hoped that the goodwill would get the victims to publish less negative stuff about ebay and that it would cause the victim to identify the operator of an anonymous troll account (which they seemed to believe was the victim or at least someone working closely with the victim). I think their goal in learning the identity of the anonymous troll account operator was to take legal action against them.
They might have gotten away with it too except the victims got a photograph and an accurate license tag for one of the ebay employee's rental cars.
They were harassing the victims while pretending to be disgruntled ebay sellers. Their plan was to step in, as ebay, and help track down and stop the harassment, thereby earning the victims trust and goodwill.
They hoped that the goodwill would get the victims to publish less negative stuff about ebay and that it would cause the victim to identify the operator of an anonymous troll account (which they seemed to believe was the victim or at least someone working closely with the victim). I think their goal in learning the identity of the anonymous troll account operator was to take legal action against them.
They might have gotten away with it too except the victims got a photograph and an accurate license tag for one of the ebay employee's rental cars.
I tried to find an official response from the company to no success through their CS so I asked the community-driven forums. After receiving some pedantic let-me-copy-paste-a-sentence-from-article-you-just-posted, I found the closest thing that I could get to an official response: https://community.ebay.com/t5/Announcements/A-message-from-J...
Here is the official comment
https://www.ebayinc.com/stories/news/ebay-inc-issues-stateme...
https://www.ebayinc.com/stories/news/ebay-inc-issues-stateme...
This is absolutely insane. How could people that are capable of acting like this end up as heads of a huge tech company? It's as if they are literally acting like children.
I'm impressed there seems to be quite a wide range of bloody pig masks to chose from.
There are whole other worlds out there.
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=bloody+pig+mask
(Also interesting the police have chosen an angle to take the photo of the bloody pig mask and the uncanny valley effect (which is photos are scarier than IRL) to make it look it's worst)
There are whole other worlds out there.
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=bloody+pig+mask
(Also interesting the police have chosen an angle to take the photo of the bloody pig mask and the uncanny valley effect (which is photos are scarier than IRL) to make it look it's worst)
Hotline Miami leftovers?
Laws are for other people. It's all the rage these days.
I'd bet a paycheck that the CEO was involved. No other way that a group of senior execs could all get on board with what was obviously a moronic idea with a staggeringly bad personal risk/reward ratio. The way this happens is that people who are used to treating CEOs like religious prophets hear an offhand comment from the CEO and go way too fucking far with it.
If the allegations are true, what's surprising to me is how comically incompetent the accused were at being ruthless.
I'm glad the victims weren't targeted by a more competent sociopath, or it might've been one step to being neutralized via financial ruin, death in the family, or being framed for some horrible crime.
I'm glad the victims weren't targeted by a more competent sociopath, or it might've been one step to being neutralized via financial ruin, death in the family, or being framed for some horrible crime.
And here I was thinking Kenton from "Devs" was an unrealistic character.
*Devs ep 1 and 2 spoilers in the article
https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/devs-kenton-character-...
*Devs ep 1 and 2 spoilers in the article
https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/devs-kenton-character-...
How is this not front-page national news ?
The story was posted less than 2 hours ago. Local news breaks much earlier than national. National news will eventually pick this up; even in the currently congested news cycle, this story is too bizarre for it not to.
> Local news breaks much earlier than national.
On federal cases involving a multi-billion household name company ? Not to my experience but perhaps.
On federal cases involving a multi-billion household name company ? Not to my experience but perhaps.
Give it 24 hours. There's a lot of competition.
Here's the NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/technology/ebay-cyberstal...
It's already made the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jun/15/ebay-empl...
It's not?
Hmm apparently Devin Wenig was the CEO of a Reuters division about a decade ago.
The investigator said something positive about policing, it'll be black listed.
eBay is such a terrible company (in part inherited from PayPal). There is no instance of dealing with then were I had plenty of headaches. I just hate the thinking to have to do anything with these companies again and any service that requires PayPal just lose me as a client on the sight of PayPal logo.
Other than speaking poorly about ebay what specifically did the so called Natick couple present as a threat to ebay or to these criminals individually?
Anyone have a link to the newsletter that was being published? Should be useful to browse a little of it to see what the threat to ebay was exactly.
Anyone have a link to the newsletter that was being published? Should be useful to browse a little of it to see what the threat to ebay was exactly.
[deleted]
Why? Why would anyone do this? What needs to happen for people to harass someone over some words on the internet that didn't harm anyone? Letting people have opinions seems like it would be easy.
[deleted]
If these actions were sanctioned from high enough figures in the hierarchy, doesn't it mean they make the company as highly liable?
That couple is going to get a fat payout.
That couple is going to get a fat payout.
It is ironic they did all that because people talked bad about the company and here we are a couple of years later and people only talk bad about the company.
As always, the CEO managed to keep himself at arms length and isn’t going to jail even though these suckers might.
The CEO could very well be the ultimate target of this investigation, and could end up in prison.
In cases like this, the prosecutors frequently offer the lower-level suspects leniency if they cooperate with the prosecution of the high-level suspect. What we're seeing here could just be the beginning of a case that could last for a long time, with evidence against the CEO accumulating at each step.
The CEO is probably getting very nervous right now. Maybe his nervousness will make him commit some more crimes, like lying to the FBI or trying to destroy evidence.
In cases like this, the prosecutors frequently offer the lower-level suspects leniency if they cooperate with the prosecution of the high-level suspect. What we're seeing here could just be the beginning of a case that could last for a long time, with evidence against the CEO accumulating at each step.
The CEO is probably getting very nervous right now. Maybe his nervousness will make him commit some more crimes, like lying to the FBI or trying to destroy evidence.
True, but usually the smart CEOs bosses etc. give instructions coded in a way that can seem vague in a court of law (“We need to do something about Tony”) but are not at all vague to their subordinates. This is why you see Mob bosses frequently get 20 year sentences while their henchmen get life without parole because they can’t be conclusively tied to the murder.
[deleted]
The plot is movie material. I bet there's a book deal(s) coming up somewhere.
There's gonna be a horror movie remake 4 years. Probably.
That's not cyberstalking - that's actual, physical, real-life stalking.
He was responsible for way too many bugs I guess.
What the hell?
> “The internal investigation found that, while Mr. Wenig’s communications were inappropriate, there was no evidence that he knew in advance about or authorized the actions that were later directed toward the blogger and her husband. However, as the company previously announced, there were a number of considerations leading to his departure from the company,” eBay said.
That’s all I had to read. It had to come from the top to be this organized.
That’s all I had to read. It had to come from the top to be this organized.
And yet ebay stock is at a near all time high, with this kind of corporate culture in place? We really live in bizarre times.
eBay just released a statement[0] which alludes to both the Chief Communications Officer and the CEO (!) having been involved.
edit: Another article[1] provides more details, including that "an eBay executive told Baugh that he wanted to 'crush' those responsible for the newsletter while another executive told Baugh to 'take her down.'" One of these must be the "inappropriate communications" by the CEO, Devin Wenig, mentioned in eBay's statement.
edit 2: Still more details in another[2] article, including quotes from communications between "Executive 1" and "Executive 2."
[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ebay-inc-issues-statement-reg...
[1] https://natick.wickedlocal.com/news/20200615/6-former-ebay-e...
[2] https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/15/metro/six-former-ebay...