
eBay’s former CEO denies any link to the cyberstalking of a blogger - pabo
https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/6/18/21295992/ebay-security-stalking-ecommercebytes-cyberstalking-devin-wenig-james-baugh
======
awinder
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
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
> 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
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.

