Friends
Is Ed really interesting enough to justify over 200 posts on SAS?
I think not.
I wouldnāt dispute the fact that you make a fair point - after all, Life does have a way of teaching us than ANY overly-undue obsession is by and large corrosive, often in ways obscure @ the first blush - but I would submit that this is not mere panem et circenses, as roguish behavior like this has long had the effect of affecting us all, due to Amazonās penchant for using sledgehammers when a scalpel is all thatās needed.
His case continues to be updated.
New-to-Amazon sellers continue to need a warning about Amazon dangers beyond just low sales.
Events that are not public knowledge continue to render this thread relevant, even necessary.
Just because something is not relevant to one person does not mean that person has all information required to form an educated opinion.
Any SAS member is free to mute this or any SAS topic (see image):
- Scroll to the bottom of this (or any) topic.
- Click the drop down below Topic Controls (probably says either Normal or Tracking).
- Select Muted. You will no longer receive topic notifications or even see the topic in categories, New, Latest, or the main page.
If any SAS member has concerns about any SAS topic, please flag the topic to contact moderators and share those concerns.
2 Likes
Iāve been out for a couple days. MAYBE someone should let Mr. Rosenberg know that Ed is now denying that he ever did any of that stuff AND publicizing the denial on Amazon discussion boards.
I asked my daughter ā a real attorney ā if this could be a violation of his probation and she said it would depend on the terms. She thought probably not since everyone denies they were guilty BUT IF the Federal Prosecutors had half a brain they would have put a no contact clause in there that would prohibit his being on the Forum.
Of course, sometimes they are as bright as Amazon, so itās questionable if they put it on the record and Iām too tired to read that many pages!
Keep reading 
I wonder if backpedaling is going to be enough to keep the Feds happy. Sometimes (?) they can be a bit nasty. 
heās not sounded off a single other beep in the amz forumā¦I wonder if they revoked his posting privilegesā¦
Best quote of the year.
They allow the serial SPAMMERS to continue week after week and month after month so I suspect thatās unlikely.
Iām more along the line of thinking that his attorney/attorneys told him to shut the 
up or he was going to the big house with a shared rec yard with some āquestionable friendsā.
Nothing like some fresh meat for the crewā¦
Thatās a good point.
His house arrest probably has terms to it, that heās expected to meet.
And likely include some āonline activityā guidelines.
Iām still just stuck on this nonsense:
His statement is gaslighting while he continues to play the victim for voluntarily, repeatedly, and intentionally choosing crime and then big-lying about it (also voluntarily, repeatedly, and intentionally).
If someone has to keep cleaning up their own messes by issuing statements admitting to lying in previous statements, then why would anyone believe anything they say? Why would you trust them?
Iām all about grace, but grace can only be extended in the face of true accountability and repentance. And giving grace to someone for past mistakes never means that they are entitled to keep abusing youāor that you keep giving them chances to do so.
This is an interesting emerging concept, and this article is a nice primer. Thereās not much actual data, but the concept is gaining ground trenches-up (i.e., from practitionersā experiences into the academic realm, rather than tower-down).
https://www.choosingtherapy.com/narcissistic-collapse/
The details are in the article, but a short list:
Ed, and friends are just looking sad right now.
This could lead down into a sewer of past failures by major companies and āleadersā at all levels but sometimes I think that the āshrinksā might not be the sharpest knives in the drawer when they take years/decades to figure out the obvious (at least to me).
And THEN the cover-up is always worse than the crime. Look at Watergate as a prime example. I would have to dig deep into my memory bank but I suspect that almost all of those numbered points took place ā certainly #1, 5, 6, 8, and 10.
The more recent (unnamed) political situation absolutely has all of them.
How many companies have been sunk because leaders went off the rails? Long prison sentences for heads of bit coin firms, drug companies, and more.
Sports is not immune either as one current Tampa Bay player might be finding out, not to mention Trevor Bauer, Pete Rose, and many more.
And, donāt get me started with Hollywood and the decades of abuse by ābig producersā and the Award shows looked the other way. A cabal of degenerates at best.
Taking decades to (apparently) figure out that powerful figures abuse power and have some āmental issuesā is absurdly slow to the party.
LOL to clarify, weāve known for quite some time that many notorious āleadersā and bosses are folks who score higher on the socio- and psychopath spectrums than most others.
Itās just this specific collapse reaction as a more common experience and perhaps not as idiosyncratic as previously thought, that is emerging.
Plus, right now thereās a lot of interest in (clinical) narcissism (a trait-based condition, not a chemical- or injury- or trauma-based conditionāand definitely not as treatable) as a factor in sociopathy and psychopathy, as well as its general presence and function as a (not clinical) character trait.
A lot of highly narcissistic people fear authenticity and look really good, even like role models and mentors and (hashtag) goalsā¦until they donāt, which is when you see through the image theyāve created for themselves into who they really are.
But I digressā¦
Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.
-John Maynard Keynes
You know, I had a thought about this.
Amazon is not a victim in this. Anyone couldāve told you that if you give $1 / hour employees the power to make multi-million dollar decisions that serious problems would arise from that. Amazonās gross negligence is what enabled this fraud to occur. They should be liable for the damages to the sellers who were harmed (they are the only real victims in this) as a result of this for the amounts that the āconsultingā company canāt pay (which is probably most of it).
I canāt argue with you. Unfortunately the true victims will never sue ed. They either think he helped them, or have no idea he hurt them.
Who said Amazon was a victim? I havenāt seen anyone say that Amazon deserves damages, nor have I seen anyone argue that Amazon is the injured party here.
I have no idea whether or not Amazon as a company was negligent in any way that caused or led to some of their employees taking bribes. One thing I have learned, however, is that some people will take any money that comes their way, even if they have to steal it. Considering how large Amazon is and how many employees they have (google claims apx. 1.5 million globally), I would be shocked if not a single one of their employees was amenable to bribes in exchange for confidential information, especially if they can rationalize by convincing themselves nobody is really being hurt. This is true whether Amazon pays $1/day or $100/hr.
This is not to say that Amazon does not have a responsibility to secure sensitive information. If they didnāt, that would be an issue to resolve on its own merits. However, even the legal filings Iāve read did not bring up that Amazon had not properly implemented protocols to secure their information. The fact is that if someone with legitimate access to information wants to abuse that access, they can.
Agree. Consumers, consultant client competitors, and legitimate, law-abiding, non-violating 3P Sellers are the victims.
BUT that doesnāt mean that this was a Robin Hood scenario or that Amazon is a bogeyman. And it doesnāt make the wrong actions of the consultants or their clients morally, ethically, or legally excusable.
There are many Amazon consultants who work with 3P Sellers for account issues, successfully, without violating any policies, breaking any laws, or even wading into any āgrayā areas at all.
If the good guys canāt help a Sellerāeven if it takes multiple attempts or a ālong timeāāthen frankly I wonder whether that Seller even should be helped. 
Hmm, lots to think about hereā¦
Iām not certain that āgross negligenceā āenabledā this, but there certainly was a lack of adequate oversight.
But Iāve seen folks making $200/hr just as willing and eager to accept a bribe, and there were many staff making the same wage who did not accept bribes, so itās not as simple as saying low wages directly caused this.
I do think that paying someone in an impoverished country to do a job only pennies to the dollar what you would pay someone who was US-based is gross exploitation, short-sighted, and the worst of capitalismābut thatās not what Rosenberg et al is about.
Certainly, these consultants took advantage of a power imbalance created by Amazon, but thatās basic greed and narcissism. If not Amazon, it would have been somewhere elseāwherever they could find a chink in the armor and convince others that they are acting nobly while grifting.
To your original question, should Amazon compensate Sellers harmed directly or indirectly by the actions of Rosenberg, Nielsen, Lecesse, etcā¦my question is how have they transformed the learnings from this into actions, protections, and safeguards to ensure it doesnāt happen again?
Amazonās playing the victim acting like they were attacked by bad actors when they themselves are at fault for the ridiculous system they have set up.
Giving off shore employees who are paid next to nothing access to sensitive information and control of seller accounts is asking for trouble. Itās pretty much a fact that the less someone is paid the more likely they are to take a bribe. A high level executive has a lot to lose if they get caught taking a bribe. An employee in India who can barely buy food every day has nothing to lose if they get caught. Big difference.
The simple fact here is Amazon was negligent since they made the decision to cut corners on security to save money on the very important seller performance team.
And yes, it is unfortunate that the victims probably wouldnāt know how exactly they were impacted (unless they got outright suspended by a rogue employee) unless Amazon was compelled to tell the victims that they were negatively impacted by a rogue employee.