3 ms·

eBay’s former CEO denies any link to the cyberstalking of a blogger

28 points by pabo 6y ago

awinder 6y ago
I don’t get this guy. Shocked to hear details? Wasn’t there a company investigation (which he later recounts), was he not even questioned by justice in filing charges against 6 people at the company? This is one of those red flag statements that strains credulity imo.
whatshisface 6y ago
Even in the hypothetical scenario where he didn't know about it, he would still be responsible, because the CEO is only informed of the things that the CEO indicates they want to be informed about.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  > There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. If he knows about it, he's responsible. If he doesn't know about it, he's responsible. Certainly you can't have it both ways if it's not willful ignorance?
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    He can be not responsible for it if he didn't have power over it, or if didn't have the power to find out about it. If he had the power to find out but failed in his duty to survey his domain of responsibility, then he would not be absolved, but instead guilty of the additional error of failing to keep track of his subordinates. It's a secondary point, but I should add that this isn't a catch-22 any moreso than, "a robber is guilty if they ate cereal that morning, and if they didn't." The point isn't that CEOs are always guilty 100% of the time, it's that knowing what's happening is their responsibility, and their guilt hinges on whether or not the bad thing happened.
  - variaga 6y ago
    This is not a catch-22. He's responsible because he was the CEO; that's what being CEO means. Don't want the responsibility? Don't become the CEO.
- raincom 6y ago
  Management and executives are known to "double speak". Subordinates have to "translate" this language. That's why they can get away with it legally, because there is no paper trail, just "he said, she said".

28 points by pabo 6y ago

I don’t get this guy. Shocked to hear details? Wasn’t there a company investigation (which he later recounts), was he not even questioned by justice in filing charges against 6 people at the company? This is one of those red flag statements that strains credulity imo.

whatshisface 6y ago

Even in the hypothetical scenario where he didn't know about it, he would still be responsible, because the CEO is only informed of the things that the CEO indicates they want to be informed about.

vorpalhex 6y ago
> There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. If he knows about it, he's responsible. If he doesn't know about it, he's responsible. Certainly you can't have it both ways if it's not willful ignorance?
- whatshisface 6y ago
  He can be not responsible for it if he didn't have power over it, or if didn't have the power to find out about it. If he had the power to find out but failed in his duty to survey his domain of responsibility, then he would not be absolved, but instead guilty of the additional error of failing to keep track of his subordinates. It's a secondary point, but I should add that this isn't a catch-22 any moreso than, "a robber is guilty if they ate cereal that morning, and if they didn't." The point isn't that CEOs are always guilty 100% of the time, it's that knowing what's happening is their responsibility, and their guilt hinges on whether or not the bad thing happened.
- variaga 6y ago
  This is not a catch-22. He's responsible because he was the CEO; that's what being CEO means. Don't want the responsibility? Don't become the CEO.
raincom 6y ago
Management and executives are known to "double speak". Subordinates have to "translate" this language. That's why they can get away with it legally, because there is no paper trail, just "he said, she said".