Keysight Scary Letter

[EEVblog]

In my case - all items they "ask" back were purchased only from Outback and only in January 2018.
Somebody, who's not as lazy as me, probably can go through eBay's history and enumerate all the things Outback sold around that time.   

Or try and figure out where Outback buy their gear from. Likely from a larger auction house by the pallet load.
In Australia for example, the Australian military use Mannheim auction house to get rid of their test gear in bulk.

[eKretz]

Further, it may well be that the equipment involved is not special in any way, nor was used for any super secret stuff - but that it was used by an organisation that does get into such work and has a blanket policy for decommissioned equipment to make sure there is NO way for ANY device to legitimately find its way out into the public arena.  If there were to be any exceptions made to such a rule, then the security would have a hole in it you could driver a Hummer through.

Eh, it seems to me that the Hummer has already left the building. Major security lapse has already happened. If this stuff has gotten out, other stuff probably has too. This is the kind of situation that is never supposed to happen if it's related to national security. If that's what this is, somebody's ass will be in the wringer.

[RoGeorge]

Just curious how Keysight wants to compensate the current owners.

Does they offer a functionally equivalent instrument, or are they talking about reimbursing the auction money payed by the buyer?

[Jwalling]

Just curious how Keysight wants to compensate the current owners.

Does they offer a functionally equivalent instrument, or are they talking about reimbursing the auction money payed by the buyer?

Reimbursing the auction money would suck, if you bought the equipment defective (cheap), then repaired it. Which was the case in both scopes that I purchased.

[linux-works]

IANAL, but it seems that if you have the item, its now in YOUR control, not theirs.  its up to them to meet YOUR price.  you can name any price since its now YOUR property.

I'd ask 10x the selling price, to start with.  their mistake: they pay for it.  full stop.

but to be honest, I'm not even sure I'd play ball with them.  if I bought something and repaired it, then some vendor wanted it back, I'd tell them to go pound sand.  unless guys with guns showed up at my door, they have no actual leverage that I can see.

[joeqsmith]

I have a friend who purchased a used car here in the USA.  The car was purpose built and there is no title or VIN.   After paying for the car and owning it for some time, the police show up.  It turns out, the car was stolen some time ago and they had been tracking it. 

The actual owner did not pay out everyone who had owned the car.  Just  the opposite.  He unknowingly bought a stolen car and was out the money he had spent on it.   I am not sure if he tried to recover his funds.  Doubt it would have been worth the cost and time.   

[Jwalling]

I have a friend who purchased a used car here in the USA.  The car was purpose built and there is no title or VIN.   After paying for the car and owning it for some time, the police show up.  It turns out, the car was stolen some time ago and they had been tracking it. 

The actual owner did not pay out everyone who had owned the car.  Just  the opposite.  He unknowingly bought a stolen car and was out the money he had spent on it.   I am not sure if he tried to recover his funds.  Doubt it would have been worth the cost and time.

Yeah, but I don't think this equipment was stolen, which I think would be a different thing altogether.

[Jwalling]

It just occurred to me. If someone out there gets one of these letters about a Tektronix instrument made in the last 25 years or so, it would be possible to find out who the equipment was originally sold to. You can look up that info on their website. That would be very interesting... 

[bson]

I have a friend who purchased a used car here in the USA.  The car was purpose built and there is no title or VIN.   After paying for the car and owning it for some time, the police show up.  It turns out, the car was stolen some time ago and they had been tracking it. 

The actual owner did not pay out everyone who had owned the car.  Just  the opposite.  He unknowingly bought a stolen car and was out the money he had spent on it.   I am not sure if he tried to recover his funds.  Doubt it would have been worth the cost and time.

Cars are a little different though; there are official title documents that change hands with them that prove ownership and a clear title.  If there's no title it needs to be established before a motor vehicle can be sold (for example a salvage title).  At least in CA the certificate of title document has a section to mail in to register any change of title when sold.  On destruction, like you scrap it, you likewise mail it in to let the DMV know so they can mark it as such.  If you have a lien on the car the CA DMV won't provide a title document until the lien is removed (for example a loan paid off, or traffic fines paid) to explicitly prevent you from selling it.

Buying a vehicle without proof of clean title... that's a self-inflicted problem.  Don't ever do that!

This is also why stolen cars are chopped and sold for parts; it's almost impossible to sell a stolen car.

[rsjsouza]

I find it interesting to think about the other end of the rope - i.e., from Keysight's perspective. If this is the case that an agreement/contract was broken or if the unit was simply loaned (thus did not actually belong to the liquidated company), then what would be a fair price to get this unit back? It is not Keysight's fault either the selling of this unit was improper/invalid. Sure, they have deep pockets and an image to preserve, but I would be cautious (just like the OP is) to get a fair price, even if it was repaired after the sale.

[factory]

Another interesting approach might be to relist the gear on ebay and invite KS to bid on it.
Get a friend to bid against them to see how badly they want it.

I'm sure they would just have it taken down, leaving the seller with any listing fees incurred and the second part of your suggestion is shill-bidding. 

David

[joeqsmith]

I have a friend who purchased a used car here in the USA.  The car was purpose built and there is no title or VIN.   After paying for the car and owning it for some time, the police show up.  It turns out, the car was stolen some time ago and they had been tracking it. 

The actual owner did not pay out everyone who had owned the car.  Just  the opposite.  He unknowingly bought a stolen car and was out the money he had spent on it.   I am not sure if he tried to recover his funds.  Doubt it would have been worth the cost and time.

Cars are a little different though; there are official title documents that change hands with them that prove ownership and a clear title.  If there's no title it needs to be established before a motor vehicle can be sold (for example a salvage title).  At least in CA the certificate of title document has a section to mail in to register any change of title when sold.  On destruction, like you scrap it, you likewise mail it in to let the DMV know so they can mark it as such.  If you have a lien on the car the CA DMV won't provide a title document until the lien is removed (for example a loan paid off, or traffic fines paid) to explicitly prevent you from selling it.

Buying a vehicle without proof of clean title... that's a self-inflicted problem.  Don't ever do that!

This is also why stolen cars are chopped and sold for parts; it's almost impossible to sell a stolen car.

It's common to scratch build purpose built cars (and motorcycles) for racing.  Custom built cars like these are not driven normally on public roads and have no VIN or title.   Have a look to get a better idea:

http://www.carvermuseum.org/drag-car-frame/

[Carl_Smith]

I have a friend who purchased a used car here in the USA.  The car was purpose built and there is no title or VIN.   After paying for the car and owning it for some time, the police show up.  It turns out, the car was stolen some time ago and they had been tracking it. 

The actual owner did not pay out everyone who had owned the car.  Just  the opposite.  He unknowingly bought a stolen car and was out the money he had spent on it.   I am not sure if he tried to recover his funds.  Doubt it would have been worth the cost and time.

Cars are a little different though; there are official title documents that change hands with them that prove ownership and a clear title.  If there's no title it needs to be established before a motor vehicle can be sold (for example a salvage title).  At least in CA the certificate of title document has a section to mail in to register any change of title when sold.  On destruction, like you scrap it, you likewise mail it in to let the DMV know so they can mark it as such.  If you have a lien on the car the CA DMV won't provide a title document until the lien is removed (for example a loan paid off, or traffic fines paid) to explicitly prevent you from selling it.

Buying a vehicle without proof of clean title... that's a self-inflicted problem.  Don't ever do that!

This is also why stolen cars are chopped and sold for parts; it's almost impossible to sell a stolen car.

It's common to scratch build purpose built cars (and motorcycles) for racing.  Custom built cars like these are not driven normally on public roads and have no VIN or title.   Have a look to get a better idea:

http://www.carvermuseum.org/drag-car-frame/

It probably varies from state to state, and I don't know how many hoops you have to jump through, but at least in my area you can get titles and registration for a purpose built car.  There are probably certain requirements for being roadworthy and safe and having required things like turn signals. 

I occasionally go to a local monthly summer car show and a couple times there was a guy there with a car he called the "hot rod manure spreader."  He basically put an engine from a Grand Prix in the back, a seat in the middle, and a sawed off section of dash board in the front.  He had a registration card on display that said 'Make: Hand Built" and "Model: Hot Rod Manure Spreader."

[vtwin@cox.net]

It probably varies from state to state, and I don't know how many hoops you have to jump through, but at least in my area you can get titles and registration for a purpose built car.  There are probably certain requirements for being roadworthy and safe and having required things like turn signals. 

In the US, any self-propelled vehicle registered must have a vin. Even some non-self-propellled vehicles must have one. There's a process in each state for you to go through to obtain a vin for a custom-built vehicle. The exact requirements may vary slightly from state to state. Even replacing an engine (which is stamped with a vin) in a vehicle can be a nightmare.

I once built a homemade trailer with a 5k axle i had laying around. Of course the trailer frame wouldn't support 5K in weight, but the axle was free so I used what I had. When I went to register it I was asked for its axle rating, which I honestly said was 5k. The woman at the DMV told me I would have to apply for a VIN even though there was no way trailer would ever haul 5k. She gave me the paperwork and I left. On the way home, I stopped at another DMV branch and, when asked what the axle rating was, I lied and said 2k. No VIN necessary.

[Mr. Scram]

May be it is not a conspiracy and they just want the old HP instruments for a new museum.

Did not one of their old buildings burned down in the California fires last year?

That would be a conspiracy, to be honest. You'd employ dishonest stories and scare tactics to gain ownership of devices you don't have any right to.

[Mr. Scram]

Reimbursing the auction money would suck, if you bought the equipment defective (cheap), then repaired it. Which was the case in both scopes that I purchased.

Even if it's functional equipment it would suck. My lab is full of items I've bought for a good price and which I wouldn't be able to easily replace with something equivalent when given the same money for it. Right now it's on the bench, and finding a new one by waiting around for a couple of months and putting time and effort into searching auction sites isn't a trivial expense. Especially when projects depend on that specific tool being present. That it's not money out of my pocket doesn't mean it doesn't represent a significant value.

[joeqsmith]

I occasionally go to a local monthly summer car show and a couple times there was a guy there with a car he called the "hot rod manure spreader."  He basically put an engine from a Grand Prix in the back, a seat in the middle, and a sawed off section of dash board in the front.  He had a registration card on display that said 'Make: Hand Built" and "Model: Hot Rod Manure Spreader."

I've seen some pretty strange things show up at the local shows as well but never a manure spreader.  Funny! 

[Fraser]

This thread is an interesting read 


The COTS technical equipment used for sensitive activities often becomes sensitive in itself as it often contains memory devices. Most OEM’s for such kit provide data sanitisation instructions to aid the disposal process. These guides detail what data is held and where it is in the equipment. Decommissioning usually removes these data repositories or leads to complete destruction of an equipment. In the world of secrets it is not a good idea to take chances with data leakage. Humans are fallible so there are often strict regulations on disposal of sensitive equipment and they are enforced.

If the equipment involved in this “recall” is covered by strict disposal regulations, it may be considered outside normal consumer law or what people see as “fair”. If there is a Government connection to the equipment, you will not be told of such as that would, in itself, be a security breach.

The equipment involved in this matter may well be of little threat to ‘national security’ but the very fact that Keysight have put their name to this embarrassing recovery process makes me think that it is a high stakes game at play. It would appear that someone made the mistake of seeing COTS test equipment and disposed of it without checking its disposal requirements. As I have said, the kit is likely not truly sensitive any more, but the very fact that it is possibly covered by strict disposal regulations could mean that it cannot be sold and must be destroyed.

To hobbyists this may seem very irrational and unfair. To those who work in Sensitive development labs it is totally logical and a requirement to avoid information leakage via the disposal channels.

So what should happen ? In a perfect World the equipment would be recovered and a replacement “non-sensitive” equipment or compensation provided. The compensation route can get complicated as, in truth, the buyer is likely to receive only market value or the amount paid, whichever is greater. Special consideration would be given to lost income and repairs carried out etc.

Can the equipment be recovered by force, like compulsory purchase ? That very much depends upon the situation and it’s implications. If the Government are involved, they have the power to enact compulsory purchase for the greater good. I personally would wish to avoid finding myself in that position as negotiating a fair compensation is likely a better deal.

Can a person ignore the recall ? Again this depends upon the seriousness of the situation and what is at stake. In some cases the actor behind the recall will avoid escalation in order to avoid publicity. In other, more serious, cases the countries Police (Special Branch in the UK) may be engaged in an attempt to recover the equipment through discussion rather than intimidation. Again, I would wish to avoid this situation as no one likes being part of a Police investigation.

You have to ask yourself why a large and well known company has embarked on this potentially embarrassing path of equipment recovery with Outback. It is not something that is likely to stay quiet for long, as this thread proves. Such a decision is likely driven by some serious ‘clout’ from outside Keysight.

My personal recommendation is to comply with the recall in a non confrontational manner and negotiate terms. Keysight will be well aware that the people it has contacted will be upset over this matter. They will want to keep negotiation amicable but trying to blackmail or gouge them for massive profit is doomed to failure and loses mutual respect. Better to discuss options in a sensible manner and possibly come away with a very good deal. My dealings with Keysight in the past have shown them to employ very decent and personable staff. They are not stupid and will know that the recovery process will likely incur anger from the persons effected. Surprise them by being friendly and work together for a solution.

Just my thoughts on the matter. Others will have a different view but think about what works for you in your particular situation. Advice from strangers is just advice. Make your own decisions based on facts and your moral compass.

Fraser

[IDEngineer]

Custom built cars like these are not driven normally on public roads and have no VIN or title.

An interesting and related point: You do not require a driver's license, nor a vehicle license, to operate a motor vehicle on private property. If you don't drive on the public roads, you absolutely do not require a driver's license.

This is a very useful fact to raise when people attempt to justify "licensing" of certain other non-sentient objects which appear to be verboten to discuss on this site. At least in the States, it's very common to hear folks say "To own a [object] you should have to get a license like a driver's license, with required training and tests". Yet the only additional ability a driver's license yields is the ability to operate a motor vehicle on PUBLIC roads. Ironically, in most States there ALREADY exists a government-issued license to "operate" a [object] in public. Without one, you are limited to "operating" your [object] on private property. In other words, the condition these folks desire already exists!

Please note I am not advocating any particular position on the question of [object] ownership. I'm only pointing out that arguing for [object] licensing modeled after driver's licensing is in some cases exactly the opposite of what those folks think they want. Similar to the way a vehicle driven on public roads must have its operator licensed, whereas on private property that is totally unnecessary.

Separately: At least in the States, the government wants its money so quickly that they stock vehicle license plates at car dealerships and the dealer collects the fees and taxes at time of purchase. I have tried to declin this "service" by telling the dealer that I will obtain the license myself, to which they respond that they are "required" to collect the money and install the plate. Hmm... there are a lot of trucks (for example) purchased by farmers and ranchers that never leave their property and thus never need a license. I wonder what would happen if you showed up with a trailer and declined the license plates, since you then have a means by which to depart with the new car without operating it on public roads. I know, I know, sometimes I'm a rabble rouser. 

[Fraser]

In case anyone is wondering, I have experienced a similar case first hand.

I legitmately purchased a COTS thermal camera via eBay.

It was modern so I followed my usual process of contacting the manufacturer to check that it was not registered stolen...... it wasn’t. End of story normally, but not this time.

The US OEM asked the UK agent to make contact with me. When I received an email asking me to ‘discus’ my camera with the UK Agent I knew trouble was headed my way

I phoned the chap in the UK.

Without going into too much detail I had a very special thermal camera in my possession. It was not for public release as it contained special firmware that gave it enhanced capabilities. The UK agent made it clear that someone had made a huge mistake selling the camera and he needed to recover it if possible. I was not threatened in any way but I knew the camera was Sold without the OEM’s authority, so could be deemed still the property of the OEM. My strong moral compass lead to the camera being collected from me in person by the UK Agent the next day.

Would I have been pursued if I had refused to co-operate ? Likely not. But I could not be certain and I was, in effect, in possession of a camera that had serious restrictions on its ownership. Morally I did not feel I could keep it.

Did I get compensated ? Yes, the UK agent paid me what the camera owed me, including the cost of some accessories that I had purchased, but no more. Was I disappointed with that, in truth yes. The camera had a very high market value in standard form and this unit was a very special, more capable type.

I miss owning that camera but my conscience is clear and I moved on from those events. No one can ever accuse me of owning a camera that is not legitimately my property and I am content with that situation 

Fraser

[Mr. Scram]

In case anyone is wondering, I have experienced a similar case first hand.

I legitmately purchased a COTS thermal camera via eBay.

It was modern so I followed my usual process of contacting the manufacturer to check that it was not registered stolen...... it wasn’t. End of story normally, but not this time.

The US OEM asked the UK agent to make contact with me. When I received an email asking me to ‘discus’ my camera with the UK Agent I knew trouble was headed my way

I phoned the chap in the UK.

Without going into too much detail I had a very special thermal camera in my possession. It was not for public release as it contained special firmware that gave it enhanced capabilities. The UK agent made it clear that someone had made a huge mistake selling the camera and he needed to recover it if possible. I was not threatened in any way but I knew the camera was Sold without the OEM’s authority, so could be deemed still the property of the OEM. My strong moral compass lead to the camera being collected from me in person by the UK Agent the next day.

Would I have been pursued if I had refused to co-operate ? Likely not. But I could not be certain and I was, in effect, in possession of a camera that had serious restrictions on its ownership. Morally I did not feel I could keep it.

Did I get compensated ? Yes, the UK agent paid me what the camera owed me, including the cost of some accessories that I had purchased, but no more. Was I disappointed with that, in truth yes. The camera had a very high market value in standard form and this unit was a very special, more capable type.

I miss owning that camera but my conscience is clear and I moved on from those events. No one can ever accuse me of owning a camera that is not legitimately my property and I am content with that situation 

Fraser

One major difference would be that they didn't beat around the bush with some story about IP. They told you what's what and why they wanted that camera out of circulation. You weighed the arguments, were reasonable and returned the camera. That's how it should be done in my book, on both ends. Maybe you should have been compensated somewhat better, but it's reasonably close to an optimal scenario.

[Fraser]

Mr Scram,

Agreed.

If I had been at Outback or Keysight, my approach would have been different.

I would have advised the new owner of the equipment that a human error had occurred and the equipment was not supposed to have been sold. I would state that recovery of the equipment was desired on a voluntary basis and that the owner would be compensated with either the full purchase cost plus additional compensation, to be discussed, or equivalent equipment.

Such a letter would be phase 1 of the recovery process and would likely sit well with most buyers. For those owners unwilling to respond in a positive manner, a second, phase 2 letter would be drafted that detailed the legal situation concerning  the equipments recovery and a request to accept the terms of ten first letter to avoid any legal escalation.

For the hard core owners who steadfastly refuse to return the equipment under any circumstances a third, phase 3, letter could be drafted with input from the legal team to detail the way forwards from the companies perspective, be that legal of further negotiations.

Equipment recovery requires a gentle and friendly approach that only ‘hardens’ to legal comment for those who need such ‘encouragement’ . Whether a company chooses to go to stage 3 very much depends upon the seriousness of the situation.

Fraser

[joeqsmith]

Custom built cars like these are not driven normally on public roads and have no VIN or title.

An interesting and related point: You do not require a driver's license, nor a vehicle license, to operate a motor vehicle on private property. If you don't drive on the public roads, you absolutely do not require a driver's license.

...

 I wonder what would happen if you showed up with a trailer and declined the license plates, since you then have a means by which to depart with the new car without operating it on public roads. I know, I know, sometimes I'm a rabble rouser. 

I would assume that is still perfectly legal.  Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it.   Now days though, someone may point you to social services for child endangerment.          

For drag racing, kids are allowed to race at a fairly young age but there are strict rules for them.   There are also different organizations and depending what tracks you run at, they may have different license requirements.   I would assume some of this has to do with the track's insurance.    For myself, getting a license was fairly straightforward.  I have a friend who wanted to drive a more exotic vehicle.  I was amazed at the testing they do.  Safety first.

[rsjsouza]

I would have advised the new owner of the equipment that a human error had occurred and the equipment was not supposed to have been sold. I would state that recovery of the equipment was desired on a voluntary basis and that the owner would be compensated with either the full purchase cost plus additional compensation, to be discussed, or equivalent equipment.

Such a letter would be phase 1 of the recovery process and would likely sit well with most buyers. For those owners unwilling to respond in a positive manner, a second, phase 2 letter would be drafted that detailed the legal situation concerning  the equipments recovery and a request to accept the terms of ten first letter to avoid any legal escalation.

For the hard core owners who steadfastly refuse to return the equipment under any circumstances a third, phase 3, letter could be drafted with input from the legal team to detail the way forwards from the companies perspective, be that legal of further negotiations.

Equipment recovery requires a gentle and friendly approach that only ‘hardens’ to legal comment for those who need such ‘encouragement’ . Whether a company chooses to go to stage 3 very much depends upon the seriousness of the situation.

Exactly. The trouble in this particular case is that the task of phase 1 was (most probably) given to legal and not to field sales, applications engineering or market relations teams. They crafted the letter using what they know best, and not what it would be most suited to the target audience of the letter. Now it is up to the aforementioned teams (sales, application or market relations) to clear up the air. Oh well, such is life.

[Stray Electron]

  rsjsouze and Fraser,

   You're overlooking the fact that at least one person here has already contacted HP regarding this over a month ago and that HP has failed to respond.  I would call that very odd since all the letters have demanded the return of the items within mere days of the time that the letter was sent. My case they demanded the returned within one day of the time that the letter was received.

  I wish the rest of you would take your car discussions elsewhere, these items are not a car and you don't have to licensed to own or operate this equipment and it is not required to be titled with any government agency.  And there may be security aspects to these cases, again unlike owning an unregistered car, so nothing that you've brought up regarding car ownership is applicable here.

    I think that if we were were dealing with stolen equipment here, HP's letters would have said so; so I'm sensing a SCAM or possibly something far more serious.  I too have dealt with um, "misplaced" .GOV items,  in every case that I know of FED agents from the DOD came looking for it. Usually they won't even tell you what they're looking for, they just look around and if they don't find what they're looking for then they just say "thank you for your time" and leave and that's the end of it.