3 ms·

I haven’t researched but this feels quite plausible. I think it’s important to remember how few people could be involved in this decisions, there could possibly

I haven’t researched but this feels quite plausible. I think it’s important to remember how few people could be involved in this decisions, there could possibly be just two people on the Newegg side making the majority of these calls.

pc86 5y ago
Does the number of people matter? If you make a decision as part of your work, that decision is de facto made by the company. Even if this was one person making $12/hr who made every single decision related to this story, it's still Newegg making the decisions. Newegg only gets a pass if it's explicitly against all actual and de facto policies, and even then they may not.
- rlpb 5y ago
  It doesn't matter when it comes to responsibility. But if you want to judge them, then I think it's relevant. Because just about every company is susceptible to an errant employee causing damage in some way or other. So do we want to judge companies on their policies and overall damage rate and probability ("how likely am I to suffer this fate if I do business with them, and what is it likely to cost me?"), or on whether they won or lost the errant employee going viral lottery ("did a bad employee work for this company once and cause damage in a way that happened by chance to become very public")?
  - lupire 5y ago
    Bad employees are far rarer than bad management. Employees don't go out of their way to steal from customers and give to the company, unless management pressures them to.
- jiveturkey 5y ago
  Yes it matters a lot! It's about plausibility. So very many security controls in industries where it actually matters, are about collusion. You can't completely prevent many types of fraud, but you can very significantly reduce it if it requires collusion. It's the same here. If 1-2 people can make this happen, it's far more likely than if a chain of 10 people are needed to execute this kind of fraud.

pc86 5y ago

Does the number of people matter? If you make a decision as part of your work, that decision is de facto made by the company. Even if this was one person making $12/hr who made every single decision related to this story, it's still Newegg making the decisions. Newegg only gets a pass if it's explicitly against all actual and de facto policies, and even then they may not.

rlpb 5y ago
It doesn't matter when it comes to responsibility. But if you want to judge them, then I think it's relevant. Because just about every company is susceptible to an errant employee causing damage in some way or other. So do we want to judge companies on their policies and overall damage rate and probability ("how likely am I to suffer this fate if I do business with them, and what is it likely to cost me?"), or on whether they won or lost the errant employee going viral lottery ("did a bad employee work for this company once and cause damage in a way that happened by chance to become very public")?
- lupire 5y ago
  Bad employees are far rarer than bad management. Employees don't go out of their way to steal from customers and give to the company, unless management pressures them to.
jiveturkey 5y ago
Yes it matters a lot! It's about plausibility. So very many security controls in industries where it actually matters, are about collusion. You can't completely prevent many types of fraud, but you can very significantly reduce it if it requires collusion. It's the same here. If 1-2 people can make this happen, it's far more likely than if a chain of 10 people are needed to execute this kind of fraud.