3 ms·
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 in
by Rantenki 6y ago
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?
- kjs3 6y agoThere 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.
- polished85 6y agoI 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.
- guerrilla 6y agoThere is evidence now as per new eBay release.
- Rantenki 6y agoI 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.