Keysight Scary Letter

[Jr460]

Just reading along.

As others have said, you will not get the real story.   The IP angle is just something that sounds legit.  If they could have made it a "safety" issue, some bad parts you could get a nasty shock or explode/fire, we want it out of the public, that might have been the story.   Even if you have the right clearance, if you are not in the middle of working on it, you don't have a need to know.


I regards to KS wanting other things back that don't have a serial number....   well, line cords, low end probes, adapters, all that little stuff also needs to be disposed of correctly.

[Brumby]

Even if you have the right clearance, if you are not in the middle of working on it, you don't have a need to know.

Ah yes, the "Need to know" paradigm.

It is a real thing and what we are currently seeing is exactly what this would look like.

Edit:
I daresay even Keysight won't know all the details!

[zitt]

If you are of the opinion that somebody operating under an obvious umbrella of security is going to volunteer information when you haven't even been identified as the owner of an item of interest, then you really don't have a practical understanding of how these things work.  You should never expect to understand anything more than somebody wants the item you have and what the "made whole" aspect will mean to you.

I have the item I want. That's why I won the bid.
Seriously; I don't give a rats arse about what Keysight and Outback want.
If they have a legit reason for wanting this equipment...and it "stolen" goods; then they need to file issue with ebay and have ebay contact me. That simple.

Aren't you just a little curious what you might get out of this campaign?

Maybe a tad. but again - it's already in stupid world. handled like sh*t... bad pr... ect.
In what world is an *EMAIL* a legal process? stupid.

[Towger]

I suggest you contact the coordinator (Keysight) and not simply be dismissive because of the messenger (Outback).

The problem is people have as requested contacted Keysight, but they have not bothered to reply back.

The only Keysight response is from Daniel.  Who is probably thinking those legal clowns have created a huge unprofessional PR mess.

[Brumby]

If they have a legit reason for wanting this equipment...and it "stolen" goods; then they need to file issue with ebay and have ebay contact me. That simple.

I think it curious that you feel eBay is a necessary path for communication.  EBay proclaims that it is just a venue and that the transaction is between the Seller and the Buyer.  If anything, the communication from Outback would carry the authority, not from eBay - at least that's how I see it.

In what world is an *EMAIL* a legal process? stupid.

The same world that accepts a fax as a legal document - and has done for many, many years.  Do you have any bills sent to you via email?  Does the date of those count as official notification?  I kinda think so.


You are entitled to act in whatever manner you see fit - but I question the wisdom of this attitude.

[bd139]

It’s a good point.

eBay explicitly make it so you have the contract of sale with them. That’s part of the service they offer. Thus the transaction is between them and you if you paid via their service or escrow.

Email is useless for legal documents because there’s no verifiable source and no signing (and no one knows about or cares about PGP). I work in financial services and it’s paper and electronic signing only.

[Brumby]

The problem is people have as requested contacted Keysight, but they have not bothered to reply back.

Yeah - That's dropping the ball - badly.  It will be enough to put people off which will make their job even harder.

[bitwelder]

What if some owner answers to KS that s/he OK with returning the instrument, but because of own 'internal policy' s/he first has to take a precautionary backup dump of every non-volatile storage device included in the instrument?

[bd139]

No one cares about that really. This is merely bureaucratic soul reaping (for lack of a better term)

[jjoonathan]

In what world is an *EMAIL* a legal process? stupid.

I assumed that the email was a courtesy and that the legally important document was the (identical) registered letter I received two days later.

[gnavigator1007]

In what world is an *EMAIL* a legal process? stupid.

I assumed that the email was a courtesy and that the legally important document was the (identical) registered letter I received two days later.

The letter reads like they're covering their legal bases and at this time they're only asking for your assistance, going so far as to say, "Keysight prefers to follow a cooperative approach to that end, rather than a formal legal approach, and it hopes  that you will cooperate with this effort." To me, it doesn't seem like a bad thing to have a reputable test equipment company effectively owing me a favor.

[jjoonathan]

Right.

The problem is people have as requested contacted Keysight, but they have not bothered to reply back.

Yeah - That's dropping the ball - badly.  It will be enough to put people off which will make their job even harder.

I was able to get in touch with both Outback and Vincent Harrington at Durie Tangrie (representing Keysight) by phone on relatively short notice, but they did not return my emails. I suspect a legal/organizational constraint where all "outgoing opposition communication" has to be be signed off by Marc Mayer or something. The original letter has his very literal signature on it.

[mikeselectricstuff]

In what world is an *EMAIL* a legal process? stupid.

I assumed that the email was a courtesy and that the legally important document was the (identical) registered letter I received two days later.

Where was this sent from -  Keysight ( or their lawyer)  or Outback?

[Brumby]

In what world is an *EMAIL* a legal process? stupid.

I assumed that the email was a courtesy and that the legally important document was the (identical) registered letter I received two days later.

That's a rather sensible thing to do.  Issue an immediate notification via email while you get the formal letters off.  Those extra days could have seen some of the gear change hands, adding to the challenge of recovery.

At least there's no question about the validity of the campaign now.

[Brumby]

In what world is an *EMAIL* a legal process? stupid.

I assumed that the email was a courtesy and that the legally important document was the (identical) registered letter I received two days later.

Where was this sent from -  Keysight ( or their lawyer)  or Outback?

My guess is Keysight (or their lawyer).  They are the logical party (as I see it) plus they are more likely to have better security clearance.

[soldar]

eBay explicitly make it so you have the contract of sale with them. That’s part of the service they offer. Thus the transaction is between them and you if you paid via their service or escrow.

This phrasing is very ambiguous because "them" could be ebay, the seller, or that guy crossing the street over there. So, it could be true, it could be false, it could be true and false at the same time, it could be a little bit true...

At any rate, the way I understand it the transaction is between buyer and seller and ebay is not the seller or dealer but is brokering the transaction. They may offer additional services like escrow, payment processing, insurance, etc. but ultimately the purchase transaction is between buyer and seller.

So "them" is the "seller". Although I guess it ultimately depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

[bd139]

eBay terms are very clear. They hire lawyers and everything...

[mikeselectricstuff]

In what world is an *EMAIL* a legal process? stupid.

I assumed that the email was a courtesy and that the legally important document was the (identical) registered letter I received two days later.

Where was this sent from -  Keysight ( or their lawyer)  or Outback?

My guess is Keysight (or their lawyer).  They are the logical party (as I see it) plus they are more likely to have better security clearance.

In which case Outback, probably illegally, gave them the buyer's address and info on what they purchased.

[soldar]

eBay terms are very clear.

Unlike your posts. What is that supposed to mean? We can all agree eBay's terms are very clear. That is not the question being asked though. The question being asked if the seller is eBay or the listing seller. So eBay's terms are very clear. OK. What are they? Can somebody link and cite? Because saying "Ebay's terms are very clear and the seller is "them" is pretty much meaningless. Who is "them"? Really, are we trying to communicate or to obfuscate? Can we have a link to eBay's page explaining who "them" is?

OK, I went searching myself:

https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/member-behaviour-policies/user-agreement?id=4259

eBay is a marketplace that allows users to offer, sell and buy just about anything in a variety of pricing formats and locations. The actual contract for sale is directly between the seller and buyer.

[Stray Electron]

This is timely

https://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2019/02/navy-needs-2-tons-storage-devices-burned-ash/154629/

Can't help laughing that a MISSILE RANGE needs a subcontractor to 'burn devices to ash'.
Why don't they just use them for target practice ?

   Just as a side note, one of my friends owns a large gun shop.  When they wanted to upgrade their old computer they needed to complete destroy their hard drive to be sure that no one could possibly recover the data off of it.  I advised them to take the drive out and chop it up with an axe.  The owner called a few days later and thanked me for that advice, she said that she was able to rid her herself all all of her frustrations that she's ever had with that computer while smashing the hard drive to itty bitty pieces!  Perhaps the USN should just line up all of those hard drives on the rifle range and give everyone a gun and let them use them for target practice.  Of if the navy can't handle that take them over to a USMC base. I KNOW that they could handle it, they LOVE to destroy things.

[bd139]

eBay terms are very clear.

Unlike your posts. What is that supposed to mean? We can all agree eBay's terms are very clear. That is not the question being asked though. The question being asked if the seller is eBay or the listing seller. So eBay's terms are very clear. OK. What are they? Can somebody link and cite? Because saying "Ebay's terms are very clear and the seller is "them" is pretty much meaningless. Who is "them"? Really, are we trying to communicate or to obfuscate? Can we have a link to eBay's page explaining who "them" is?

OK, I went searching myself:

https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/member-behaviour-policies/user-agreement?id=4259

eBay is a marketplace that allows users to offer, sell and buy just about anything in a variety of pricing formats and locations. The actual contract for sale is directly between the seller and buyer.

That’s only the case if it’s a C2C transaction and that can be disputed on the basis that the seller may be masking a business. B2C/B2B, they are a facilitator, much as amazon are, and are required to proxy consumer protection laws. It turns into a four party agreement in some cases which is difficult.  Note that eBay user agreement does not change statutory law and they know that. It says that in our local terms. Have you noticed how the buyer is always right? That’s because they don’t want to risk that liability even if they disclaim it.

Fundamentally buck stops at eBay. But the easiest ride is at the credit card company or Paypal.

[Stray Electron]

At least there's no question about the validity of the campaign now.

   I completely disagree. The complete lack of any follow up response from HP or their attorney even after buyers have contacted them greatly disturbs me and makes me think all the more that this is some kind of scam.  Daniel has said that he knows the HP rep that's named on the letter but won't say any more than that so again, the complete lack of any details makes me deeply suspicious.

   One more thing,  I've been in many situations where I was promised "to be made whole" but I've always been short changed in the process (taxes weren't paid, my time complying with their documentation wasn't paid for, lost money of exchange rates, etc etc).   So I'm highly skeptical that if I turned anything over to "them", that I would be provided with a suitable replacement.  Most likely they would only pay what I paid for the basic item and nothing more.  So I would be out all of the time that I searched for the item, my expenses purchasing it and having it shipped to me, the cost of cleaning and repairing and calibrating it, the costs of manuals and probes, the time that I invested in learning how to use it, etc etc. In short, I see NO benefit to cooperating with this inquiry.  One of the things that greatly concerns me is that even if they gave me a new piece of gear, I seriously doubt that it would be built to the quality standards that my old HP gear was. Also my old gear uses many off the shelf parts and there is at least some technical documentation so it is MOL repairable.  The new HP gear?  No, when it fails throw it in the trash or spend a fortune to send it back to HP for (board-lever replacement only) repair. I purposely buy the older HP (and other) Test Equipment and not the new stuff because it IS repairable and has real technical manuals. I've looked at the new HP gear and yes it has better specifications but nothing that I need and as far as I'm concerned the lack of repairability and maintainability outweighs the increase in performance so I'm not interested even if they offered a NEW piece of TE in exchange.

  My $0.02 worth.

[soldar]

That’s only the case if it’s a C2C transaction and that can be disputed on the basis that the seller may be masking a business. B2C/B2B, they are a facilitator, much as amazon are, and are required to proxy consumer protection laws. It turns into a four party agreement in some cases which is difficult.  Note that eBay user agreement does not change statutory law and they know that. It says that in our local terms. Have you noticed how the buyer is always right? That’s because they don’t want to risk that liability even if they disclaim it.

Fundamentally buck stops at eBay. But the easiest ride is at the credit card company or Paypal.

I am sure you have plenty of cites supporting this view. Can we see one or two?  I would like to see a court ruling that says eBay is considered to be the seller and is responsible for the sale. Otherwise it's just your unsupported opinion. Let us see a citation.

[bd139]

It’s basic commercial law. Go looky go findy. I’m not your consultant.

[Fraser]

I have personal experience of dealing with eBay on a matter that ended up in the hands of the Police. Here is what I learnt during a very unpleasant situation with an absolute nut case of a seller who threatened GBH against myself and my family.

1. EBay is a platform that brings seller and buyer together.
2. EBay have rules by which seller and buyers must abide to remain on the platform.
3. EBay at no time guarantees or underwrites the provision of an item from a seller. They are only a conduit of communication and referee in disputes.
4. EBay has the power to warn a seller or buyer of wrongdoing and the ultimate sanction is cancellation of a persons account. They may also choose to use other Sources of information to prevent the barred person opening a new account. Various sources of intelligence are available to them.
5. A seller who refuses to ship an item will be warned about their breach of the rules but not normally subject to cancellation of their account unless a habiltual offender.
6. EBay do not like cancelling sellers or buyers accounts for obvious reasons ..... money !
7. EBay have a dedicated security team who engage in matters involving stolen or counterfeit items. They will co-operate with the Police if asked for an account owners details and sales/purchase history.
8. EBay has no powers beyond a civilian company and any illegal activity is normally referred to the Police either by them or the Person making a complaint. It is normally the latter in most cases, as in mine.
9. EBay take a fee for auctions and sales but take no responsibility for what is sold on their platform beyond prohibiting certain items like animals, firearms and swords etc. If a deal goes bad or is illegal EBay will work on behalf of a a buyer to recover the buyers funds. That is the limit of their responsibility beyond warning an account owner of unacceptable behaviour.
10. EBay made it very clear to me that I needed to engage the Police in my case but they were also clear that they are just a platform with no great powers and very reliant on the good morals of the account holders. Punitive action is therefore very limited and they take no responsibility for the behaviour of account holders.

In my case, the seller was immediately banned for life with a full EBay internal investigation started and all possible means used to detect if the seller ever tries to open an EBay account again. The Seller was facing 2 years in prison and a criminal record so it was a very serious matter. As I have stated, EBay is just a communications platform that has internal rules and will co-operate with the Police of the host country.

Hope this help a little to understand what EBay is, and is not

Fraser