I wonder if there was a connection to the ongoing wrongful death lawsuit after a doctor suffered a fatal allergic reaction at a Disney World restaurant? That's the one where Disney tried to get her widower's lawsuit tossed by pointing to the fine print of a Disney+ trial he had signed up for years earlier.
They would. Someone hacking their computers and causing a death doesn't necessarily absolve them of liability, while a waver of liability could do exactly that.
With all due respect that is just not how lawyers operate. They can and will use every argument within their constraints that can lead to a win. That's their job. They are even allowed to put forth arguments that are mutually exclusive and nonsensical when taken together.
Yea, but lawyers for the biggest corporations on earth also have to be aware of when their actions will cost in goodwill and publicity.
Making a weak legal argument that is bound to highlight the heartlessness of a corporation that tries to be famously accommodating and friendly to guests is a move that should have been caught before the argument was filed.
How much in goodwill and PR work did it cost them to make an argument that would have saved them maybe a million dollars in the unlikely event it worked.
There’s a reason that corporations will often settle cases that they are legally in the right for, and cost benefit analyses are a huge part of that.
Very well, if there was a connection to a person who even potentially caused the death with mischief it would obviously be part of the story and in the headline, was the point.
That's not true. They're obligated to make good faith arguments consistent with the legal profession's ethics code, that don't deliberately waste the court's time with rabbit holes, not just throw forth everything that might stick because they duped the right judge. (This came up IIRC when Trump's lawyers made such arguments to dispute the 2020 election results.)
"Disney+'s terms of services categorically shields us from all legal liability" is not a good-faith argument, and, if accepted generally, would create a world no one seriously wants to live in, including those lawyers.
This is especially true when Disney had an actually reasonable, good-faith argument in this case, that the law can't pass on liability for everything a restaurant does wrong, just because you recommend it, especially when the regulation and management of that restaurant is totally out of your control. This would create a horrible world where no one can make a recommendation without thereby becoming responsible for everything that goes wrong at that establishment later.
I walked into this thread looking for an opening to rip a bit on disney.
But WOW, food?, actualy weaponising food?, no, even a condemed man gets a last meal
I'd get it if he had dug deap and found some dirt on disney's practices and suppliers, or done something like changed the menue's on the web site to say that the food contained fecal concentrate.
But to mess with allergins......no....people with real food allergy's just die.....we lost one from our crew....likely a cross contamination....another one died on the farm kitty corner to mine, bee sting on open farm day,
both young women, leaves a mark
terrifying for the family's and friends of people with allergies to think that someone would actualy target them.
hope the fucker is real sorry, and finds a way to make amends
>These intrusions included manipulating allergen information in restaurant menus to indicate that food items were safe for customers with certain allergies, when they were not. Scheuer also altered menu information related to wine regions to reflect locations of recent mass shootings. Additionally, Scheuer launched denial-of-service attacks designed to lock certain company employees out of their accounts.
Endangering third parties in an effort to take revenge on your former employer is sociopath territory.
I can see where you may get that idea, but I believe the point was supposed to be: just because it is done, it doesn't mean you can do it too. And that also doesn't mean it's ok for corporations to do it, they just have an easier time than the common person because our society runs and money and they have (much!) more of it.
In this context, "cybernetic" refers to the systems of control, communication, and feedback that govern corporations.
Corporations function as systems designed for efficiency and goal achievement, often prioritizing these over human qualities like empathy or creativity.
Cybernetic refers to systems of communication and automated control, which would describe the purpose of a corp in a broad sense, no?
The Dan Davies book “The Accountability Machine” [0] makes the link between corps and cybernetics through early business author/consultants like Stafford Beer [1].
> Endangering third parties in an effort to take revenge on your former employer is sociopath territory.
I don't think that really does. I think it's common human behavior to not think about the third parties you're actually endangering and only focusing on who you're trying to hurt.
We don't like to think of ourselves that way but it's relatively easy to push buttons on a human and get them to do things we would regard as "sociopathic" with out the person themselves being a sociopath. See On Killing by Dave Grossman.
I've been looking at the stories about this and one thing I haven't been able to find: how was he able to modify the data in Disney's system after they fired him? Stole someone else's credentials, left a back door they didn't catch, or did they fail to switch him off?
From what I can tell Disney has digital and printed menus. A prior article [1] offers more information on how he did it: "...has admitted to hacking into the company’s menu creation software" and "... formerly worked as the company’s Menu Production Manager...".
I assume that the software probably controls all menus, both digital and printed.
Mens rea is criminal intent, actus reus is criminal action. Without mens rea there is no crime (there being the exception of strict liability crimes, which do not apply here and would not involve intent at all anyway).
From [1]:
> It is generally agreed that the essential ingredients of any crime are (1) a voluntary act or omission (actus reus), accompanied by (2) a certain state of mind (mens rea).
"Mens rea" is generally a lower bar than what "intent" means in common usage. Mens rea is refers to the intent to take a specific action. Intent in common usage refers to the intent to cause a specific outcome.
For drunk driving there definitely is mens rea. A drunk driver did intend to get in their car to drive. Whether or not they intended to create grave risk to life is up for debate.
I would normally agree but digging into the details of this incident:
> Note that this allegedly vengeful former employee also risked public health and safety. By editing the menus to suggest that certain items were safe for people with peanut allergies when they weren’t, he risked people having life-threatening anaphylactic incidents. There is no allegation that anyone was actually harmed or injured, however, as Disney detected the alterations before menus could be sent out to restaurants
I wonder if there was a connection to the ongoing wrongful death lawsuit after a doctor suffered a fatal allergic reaction at a Disney World restaurant? That's the one where Disney tried to get her widower's lawsuit tossed by pointing to the fine print of a Disney+ trial he had signed up for years earlier.
They wouldn't be pointing to the fine print of a Disney+ trial if they had a murderer they could point to.
They would. Someone hacking their computers and causing a death doesn't necessarily absolve them of liability, while a waver of liability could do exactly that.
With all due respect that is just not how lawyers operate. They can and will use every argument within their constraints that can lead to a win. That's their job. They are even allowed to put forth arguments that are mutually exclusive and nonsensical when taken together.
Yea, but lawyers for the biggest corporations on earth also have to be aware of when their actions will cost in goodwill and publicity.
Making a weak legal argument that is bound to highlight the heartlessness of a corporation that tries to be famously accommodating and friendly to guests is a move that should have been caught before the argument was filed.
How much in goodwill and PR work did it cost them to make an argument that would have saved them maybe a million dollars in the unlikely event it worked.
There’s a reason that corporations will often settle cases that they are legally in the right for, and cost benefit analyses are a huge part of that.
Very well, if there was a connection to a person who even potentially caused the death with mischief it would obviously be part of the story and in the headline, was the point.
That's not true. They're obligated to make good faith arguments consistent with the legal profession's ethics code, that don't deliberately waste the court's time with rabbit holes, not just throw forth everything that might stick because they duped the right judge. (This came up IIRC when Trump's lawyers made such arguments to dispute the 2020 election results.)
"Disney+'s terms of services categorically shields us from all legal liability" is not a good-faith argument, and, if accepted generally, would create a world no one seriously wants to live in, including those lawyers.
This is especially true when Disney had an actually reasonable, good-faith argument in this case, that the law can't pass on liability for everything a restaurant does wrong, just because you recommend it, especially when the regulation and management of that restaurant is totally out of your control. This would create a horrible world where no one can make a recommendation without thereby becoming responsible for everything that goes wrong at that establishment later.
Not directly. His changes were never seen by the public.
They deserve more time. Changing food allergin warnings could have killed someone.
I walked into this thread looking for an opening to rip a bit on disney. But WOW, food?, actualy weaponising food?, no, even a condemed man gets a last meal I'd get it if he had dug deap and found some dirt on disney's practices and suppliers, or done something like changed the menue's on the web site to say that the food contained fecal concentrate. But to mess with allergins......no....people with real food allergy's just die.....we lost one from our crew....likely a cross contamination....another one died on the farm kitty corner to mine, bee sting on open farm day, both young women, leaves a mark terrifying for the family's and friends of people with allergies to think that someone would actualy target them. hope the fucker is real sorry, and finds a way to make amends
>These intrusions included manipulating allergen information in restaurant menus to indicate that food items were safe for customers with certain allergies, when they were not. Scheuer also altered menu information related to wine regions to reflect locations of recent mass shootings. Additionally, Scheuer launched denial-of-service attacks designed to lock certain company employees out of their accounts.
Endangering third parties in an effort to take revenge on your former employer is sociopath territory.
He wasn’t just endangering them; he was weaponizing them against Disney. His goal was for their deaths to become lawsuits and PR crises.
yea, to be honest guy deserves much more than 3 yrs.
There are ways to kill a corporation without the need to use the same playbook as corporations (using others as pawns to get a point across).
So it is okay to use people as pawns if you are a corporation?
I can see where you may get that idea, but I believe the point was supposed to be: just because it is done, it doesn't mean you can do it too. And that also doesn't mean it's ok for corporations to do it, they just have an easier time than the common person because our society runs and money and they have (much!) more of it.
Corporations are cybernetic entities devoid of human qualities.
what do you think cybernetic means?
people have been misusing the term cybernetic for a while now, I've noticed...
In this context, "cybernetic" refers to the systems of control, communication, and feedback that govern corporations.
Corporations function as systems designed for efficiency and goal achievement, often prioritizing these over human qualities like empathy or creativity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics
Despite the word "cyber", it doesn't refer to brain implants or computers.
Cybernetic refers to systems of communication and automated control, which would describe the purpose of a corp in a broad sense, no?
The Dan Davies book “The Accountability Machine” [0] makes the link between corps and cybernetics through early business author/consultants like Stafford Beer [1].
0. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/U/bo252799...
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
what do you think cybernetic means?
people have been misusing the term cybernetic for a while now, I've noticed...
[flagged]
> Endangering third parties in an effort to take revenge on your former employer is sociopath territory.
I don't think that really does. I think it's common human behavior to not think about the third parties you're actually endangering and only focusing on who you're trying to hurt.
We don't like to think of ourselves that way but it's relatively easy to push buttons on a human and get them to do things we would regard as "sociopathic" with out the person themselves being a sociopath. See On Killing by Dave Grossman.
> not think about the third parties you're actually endangering and only focusing on who you're trying to hurt
Right. That’s sociopathic hate. Note that OP didn’t say psychopathic, which is something one is born with.
I've been looking at the stories about this and one thing I haven't been able to find: how was he able to modify the data in Disney's system after they fired him? Stole someone else's credentials, left a back door they didn't catch, or did they fail to switch him off?
what a wild situation, were their menus digital or did he edit a pdf in their database somewhere?
From what I can tell Disney has digital and printed menus. A prior article [1] offers more information on how he did it: "...has admitted to hacking into the company’s menu creation software" and "... formerly worked as the company’s Menu Production Manager...".
I assume that the software probably controls all menus, both digital and printed.
[1] https://databreaches.net/2025/01/13/former-disney-employee-a...
[flagged]
He removed allergy information. He was willing to harm or maybe even kill someone for the purpose of damaging Disney financially and reputationally.
In that case - yeah I guess at least 3yrs is suitable
3 years seems extreme. Drunk drivers mostly don't get jail time.
Intent. Drunk drivers are being stupid and dangerous. This person was intentionally dangerous.
Drunk driving is also intentional
No. The intent of drunk driving is to get around. There is no malicious intent, just extreme negligence.
Negligence, and recklessness, which is where I would place drunk driving, are both mens rea.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence
We are discussing intent.
Mens rea is criminal intent, actus reus is criminal action. Without mens rea there is no crime (there being the exception of strict liability crimes, which do not apply here and would not involve intent at all anyway).
From [1]:
> It is generally agreed that the essential ingredients of any crime are (1) a voluntary act or omission (actus reus), accompanied by (2) a certain state of mind (mens rea).
[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/criminal-law/The-elements-o...
"Mens rea" is generally a lower bar than what "intent" means in common usage. Mens rea is refers to the intent to take a specific action. Intent in common usage refers to the intent to cause a specific outcome.
For drunk driving there definitely is mens rea. A drunk driver did intend to get in their car to drive. Whether or not they intended to create grave risk to life is up for debate.
I would normally agree but digging into the details of this incident:
> Note that this allegedly vengeful former employee also risked public health and safety. By editing the menus to suggest that certain items were safe for people with peanut allergies when they weren’t, he risked people having life-threatening anaphylactic incidents. There is no allegation that anyone was actually harmed or injured, however, as Disney detected the alterations before menus could be sent out to restaurants
https://databreaches.net/2024/10/30/fbi-investigated-disney-...
A drunk driver far more directly puts people at risk than a menu with incorrect allergen information.
Fewer than 1% of allergy incidents result in death, which can't be said for drunk driver crashes.
What's up with all these strange analogies.
This would be programming a machine to print "non-alcoholic" on alcoholic beer in such an analogy about drunk drivers.
cant tell if you are a troll or a Luigi the murderer supporter.