[nupark2]

AOL out the funds they spent on his theft of service and resources, and they're out the time they spent having security figure out why someone was sleeping there. They've been embarrassed in the press, and they're that much less likely to trust people that are part of their entrepreneur programs in the future.

The security staff in question was probably reprimanded for their failure to detect the interloper -- he abused the trust he had gained by previously becoming a "known" face.

You do what you have to do, ethically, to succeed.

[djloche]

"They've been embarrassed in the press"

They've actually been profiled as a reasonable company that invests in the future. How many people reading this article know AOL as "that company that first sent me discs in the mail" and previously thought AOL as a dead company?

AOL gets free, positive press showing that they're not dead, they're investing in the future, and that they're reasonable. The positive spin this article gives them is worth every penny of resources spent.

[nupark2]

> They've actually been profiled as a reasonable company that invests in the future.

The best thing they can do at this point is put a positive spin on it, but ...

> The positive spin this article gives them is worth every penny of resources spent.

Not your decision to make for AOL. AOL will spin this, but post-facto justification ("see, it's not that bad -- they made good on my theft!") does not an ethical decision make.

[djloche]

Nowhere do I lay claim to making decisions for AOL. While I doubt they are interested, if AOL wishes to hire me for such purposes, I am available.

I pointed out that it was my opinion that the cost of the resources that Eric used was less than the cost of genuine, positive press.

I also did not declare his actions ethical. I responded to your claim that AOL has been embarrassed.

AOL responded appropriately (not pressing charges, just kindly requiring him to not sleep/live there anymore), and was able to respond to the press inquiry with a lighthearted statement that fits the narrative of the article. The article presents AOL not only as having reasonable management, but also as a place to work with great benefits (food, showers, gym, startup incubators, friendly environment).

AOL is where Yahoo will be in 5 years: they have nowhere to go but up in terms of public reputation and mindshare.

[nupark2]

I see AOL as doing their best to avoid a bigger snafu over a smaller, unattractive snafu. Opinions on the value of this PR will vary, but the fact is that there's no substance here.

Somebody abused their fairly standard SV corporate perks, they responded without bringing in the police.

At the end of the day, my subjective impression is that their startup interests brought in an immature, ethically-challenged entrepreneur who is stuck in the money-raising cycle, and accordingly AOL has been dragged into the press because of something stupid he did.

That isn't a particularly positive narrative, but I can see how people that are more comfortable with Eric's failure of ethics can see it as a cool story of "hustling" entrepreneurship.

[Scramblejams]

Yeah, this was the first time I can remember thinking of "AOL" and "cool" in the same sentence. On the whole I think it reflects well on them.

[chc]

Meh. On AOL's scale, this sounds kind of like somebody noticing that I dropped a nickel and pocketing it instead of chasing after me. I suppose it's kind of unethical — I wouldn't do it, personally — but to put it in the same bucket with what we usually consider breaches of ethics seems incorrect. Even the AOL exec quoted in the article seemed more amused than anything else.

[joshuamerrill]

I'm sure the value of the theft is immaterial to AOL. The security breach is more serious, and the bigger issue, to me, is that other startups in the same building that are behaving ethically could suffer because of one person's behavior.

[koide]

Or not... stop worrying that much until you actually see a consequence.

By the way, all AOL has to do now is to chastise a bit the security people and to make sure the security rounds do cover the whole floor plan. Nothing more, nothing less. I hardly see that as suffering for the other startups in the building.