Some points:
(A) I would like to suggest we don't get too wrapped up in the reason (or pretext, depending on your standing) for the approach that has been used. It may be a legitimate claim, but it is certainly a mechanism for opening a conversation. Yes, it may be curious, questionable, obscure or even laughable (as some have indicated), but there has to be some sort of contact to get the ball rolling. I would not be at all surprised if the fundamental secrecy framework that governed the equipment involved extends to these communications and that, as a result, these communications are constrained to such a degree that they end up feeling contrived, or even "lame".
(B) Having a legal practice involved from the get-go is nothing to get up in arms about, IMO. That would be the preferred choice in my book to be involved in this sort of a campaign. However, that does present the idea that further legal avenues may be exercised. Some might call that intimidation, but I would consider that label a bit too harsh at this point.
(C) Why have there been no reports of "offers" forthcoming? To me, it's really very simple. For any given item, the first thing that has to be done is to locate it. Nobody is going to make any offers until they have confirmation they have found the current owner. Until then, don't expect any more than the hint already given: "made whole". If someone who is approached does not confirm they have the item, then I can't see any offers forthcoming. Doesn't make sense to offer something to someone who may not have the item.
If someone has confirmed ownership and received an offer, it is entirely likely that the details will be subject to a confidentiality agreement. In fact, I couldn't see it happening any other way. While any other legal angles may be tenuous, breaking such an explicit agreement would be a pretty straightforward lawsuit.
(D) Considering there would seem to be an obvious element of secrecy, there is another factor involved - and this is one the conspiracy theorists would love to grab hold of - minimising the visibility of the stuff-up to the public. There are a dozen reasons/excuses you could roll out here. Whether they are legitimate or not is irrelevant. The fact is, the desire for secrecy is real - and while we will have anarchists out there that want to call it out, the powers that be will be aiming for the lowest profile possible. Whether you like this sort of thing or not, it's a fact of life. You can either fight it, or roll with it - and the ones likely to fight it will be the ones who aren't involved and have nothing to gain, other than having been seen on their soapbox.
(E) From the evidence available, the approach taken indicates a desire for an amicable resolution. This is simple courtesy - as nobody involved in this campaign has done anything wrong. It would seem logical to explore the alternatives in the same vein.
(F) Also, remember, someone will be paying the bill for all this - and it will be their desire for the total to be as low as possible, so IF the approach is to offer a new product (with a $1,000 hit on the bill) in exchange to resolve a given situation, it's going to be cheaper than getting lawyers involved.
(G) Keysight's involvement here seems pretty obvious to me. It would seem all the equipment involved is Keysight gear. A logical situation - a bulk purchase from one vendor to kit out some project. This gear got out in the wild and now they need to get it back - but what would be the best way? The people that acquired the gear would have done so because of the functionality each item can provide - so they aren't going to be happy if that is lost from their workshop. An exchange would seem to have a far better chance of a happy result ... and if you're going to exchange your Keysight (or Agilent or HP) gear for something else, then offering Keysight kit is going to go down a lot better. Where better to source Keysight gear, than direct from Keysight. Also, Keysight are going to want to cooperate, since they have a vested interest in being seen as a cooperative partner. Helping out in a situation like this is going to support their corporate presence and maintain a positive image in the eyes of those approving the spend on future equipment purchases. In fact, Keysight would be hard pressed to say no. At the end, I have little doubt that Keysight will submit a bill to the campaign manager for their contribution.
(H) IANAL - but, if all else fails, I would be wondering on the legal avenues available - and that's where the original secrecy elements that gave rise to this whole situation would seem to present an angle. Can anyone comment on this hypothesis: If the project for which all this equipment was purchased was covered under some national security classification, could the argument be made that since its eventual destruction was mandated under such an umbrella, that is continued existence represents a risk to national security**, resulting in a seizure order of some sort? Could this also be sufficient for a search warrant?
Edit:
** In principle. The fact that an item like a DMM you could buy as an individual is no practical risk being irrelevant.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
