Surveillance Company CEO Threatens To Sue Reporter For Writing About His Company
from the really-serving-your-company-at-full-capacity-there,-Scotty dept
When a reporter sends inquiries about claims made on your website, the best response is obviously to threaten them with a lawsuit. That should ensure a steady stream of positive press and deter them from asking further questions about claims made on your website.
Oh, wait. It's the other thing. It ensures you'll be at least temporarily enshrined as an asshat and litigious thug, especially when the reporter is only asking questions any logical person might when coming across these claims.
That's what just happened to Isabella Cheng of IPVM, a long-running and respected authority on security cameras and other video surveillance technology. Here are just some of IPVM's credentials:
IPVM research is cited in US Congressional reporting as well as global publications ranging from the WSJ, BBC, Financial Times, WaPo, NY Times, Bloomberg, Reuters, VoA, and many more.
And here are Backstreet Surveillance's CEO Scott McQuarrie's most relevant… um… credentials… as relayed to the IPVM reporter after she emailed questions about claims made on Backstreet's site. Keep in mind, these were questions Cheng was also asking other surveillance camera sellers.
Backstreet Surveillance's CEO objected to an IPVM reporter's questions, warning the reporter to "elevate this to your upper management, it [sic] important they be involved because we will pull the trigger on a lawsuit the instant you refence [sic] me or my company in any article" in a lengthy response to questions about the company's NDAA claims.
Scott McQuarrie might want to explain where in the United States "referencing [Backstreet] or [CEO Scott McQuarrie] in any article" is an actionable legal claim. I understand the legal system will, however briefly, entertain anything lobbed into a court with a filing fee attached, but there is currently no (legal) way to prevent someone from referencing companies in articles, blog posts, tweets, Facebookery, LiveJournal fanfic, or whatever.
The backstory hardly explains the response. IPVM was seeking comment from several camera providers about NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) claims made on their websites. "NDAA compliant" may look good slapped on products and referenced in marketing copy, but all it really means is the company is not one of a handful of Chinese companies which have been blacklisted by the federal government. Being compliant simply means not reselling these products or using their components. Not all that tough to do.
While it's true there's such a thing as "NDAA certified," it's not much more than being "NDAA compliant." Any manufacturer that is compliant can easily become "certified" by filling out and signing a form stating that you're not on the ban list nor do you use components that are on the ban list.
Backstreet makes a big deal about both of these things. It also has written a blog post about these things, amplifying the company's ability to not be a Chinese manufacturer banned by the US government. In that post, Backstreet calls out another company for claiming to be NDAA compliant when, in fact, it is owned by a Chinese company banned by the federal government. In that post, it uses this image:
It tells customers to "look for this logo," pointing to Backstreet's self-created "NDAA Compliance" logo. This post was edited after IPVM started asking questions. The original post told customers to "only buy equipment that displays the approved [NDAA] logo." IPVM wanted to know what "approved logo" referred to, since it's pretty clear the federal government hasn't created or distributed an "NDAA Compliance" logo. Instead, camera manufacturers are creating their own logos, giving their products an air of (federal) authority without actually having any government-created logo to designate their ability to be not one of a handful of Chinese manufacturers.
Prior to the belated correction, Backstreet gave the impression there was such a thing: a government-created logo given only to those who were truly NDAA compliant.
How do you know you are buying equipment that is approved and secure? Only buy equipment that states it is NDAA compliant and displays the approved logo.
Rather than simply apologize or offer to get back to the reporter with more details, McQuarrie fired off an email calling the reporter "incompentent" and a "rooky" [sic]. This followed his first email where he stated the reporter didn't "understand" the apparent complexities of Backstreet's "approved logo" claims.
After the legal threats came a correction -- one that could have been given as an initial response to the reporter's questions:
There is no government approved NDAA logo. The logo we use on our site was created by us and is placed on all products on our site that meet NDAA requirements. This is done so consumers are aware of which items they can consider if NDAA is of concern to them. Initial postings on a single webpage included the term "approved NDAA logo". This was an error made by an entry level programmer, as soon as we were aware of the error the term was removed.
A little late but better than what the CEO offered in response to press inquiries. And rather than simply admit the error and walk away from it, the correction (prompted by the IPVM reporter's questions) arrived with additional direct criticism of the site that made the CEO aware of its misstatements about NDAA logos.
Why we Posted this Information
We received an email from a reporter for IPVM, an online security magazine. While we welcome any inquiry and interest in our equipment and services, we were offended by the tone of her email and and lack of basic knowledge. We do not appreciate her prejudgment and biased approach. She gave us until December 6th to respond because its likely she had already written the article and it is scheduled to be published. The problem is her ignorance of the basic facts is already woven into her article. ISABELLA, YES THERE IS NDAA CERTIFICATION AND YES YOU USE A GOVERNMENT FORM TO DOCUMENT IT! Its stunning that a publication that presents itself as a security industry resource is void of such basic knowledge.
But the report had not yet been written. The journalist was still seeking comment from several companies. The report was never going to be solely about Backstreet… at least not until Scott McQuarrie made at least this article solely about him and his company. One has to assume this addition wasn't written by everyone's favorite scapegoat, an "entry-level" employee. The typos and grammatical errors eerily align with McQuarrie's (shall we say) cadence when responding to IPVM's inquiries.
Appended to what appears to be McQuarrie's angry keyboard-hammering is an equally ridiculous "legal notice for IPVM":
Posted December 5th at 9:23am MST documenting this factual information was publically available to IPVM before IPVM posted any non-factual slanderous articles. All liability now lies with IPVM and all legal remedies for damages inflicted on Backstreet are reserved and will be exercised to the full extend of the law.
Well, no lawyer was consulted before this was angrily written. You can't shift liability just by adding a paragraph to a blog post. Responding in kind would require IPVM to "fully extend" at least one middle finger in the direction of the CEO, who doesn't appear to have the mentality needed to interact with the press, much less hold a leadership role in a company that employs anyone but himself.
IPVM asked some simple questions. The CEO could have answered the questions and corrected any claims that weren't entirely accurate. It's not that hard to do. Two other companies contacted by IPVM with similar questions responded this way:
[V]deo surveillance supplier, Clare Controls, responded "The use of the word certified is an error. Our policy is to state compliance. This will be corrected immediately."
Likewise, Verkada responded saying they "have removed the page in question" and ceased saying they were "NDAA certified."
It doesn't appear Backstreet is willing to sue. (At least so far…) McQuarrie, having fucked this up entirely, has decided to walk away from this with his unearned smugness intact. This is how he responded to IPVM's post covering his baseless legal threats:
John,
Hang on, after looking at what you posted, we are quite comfortable. It clearly shows the bias of your reporter and our concerns. If you would please provide more SEO links to our site so we get as much benefit from the article as possible it would be apricated.
Thank you
Oh, but it doesn't, Scott. It shows you don't know how to handle press inquiries and are willing to sabotage both your and your company's reputations because you think legal threats are an appropriate response to errors or misleading claims on your company's website. You're not going to score any Google juice from IPVM's article. SEO does not work that way, doubly so because IPVM never links to your website directly. And we won't either. What's going to be rising in the Google ranks is your bullshit legal threats in response to mistakes on your company's website. You need to think before you speak. And, as the CEO of a company, you should probably consult your company's legal reps before issuing legal threats.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: isabella cheng, journalism, ndaa, reporting, scott mcquarrie, surveillance cameras
Companies: backstreet surveillance, ipvm
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Backstreet's Back?
And if you're feeling really nostalgic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"refence"?
Can someone explain to me how a toddler is given a position of Chief Executive Officer of a corporation?
YAEO--Yet Another Example of: the effectiveness of the govt. policy of No Child Left Behind.
Unless, of course, that CEO was referring to a chain link fence that had fallen and needed to be re-installed, i mean, refenced. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "refence"?
Surely a chain link fence is overkill for managing a toddler. Maybe Mother left the baby gate open and will need to remember to close it next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "refence"?
Sorry, friend. But it's a little late to close the playpen gate once the baby has gone on a rampage and trashed the living room.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "refence"?
No child left behind passed in 2001. Scott McQuarrie would have had to graduate HS after 2001 to have a chance of being impacted by no child left behind policies. A quick search reveals he graduated college in 98.
I might have been willing to let you try to dunk on a minor typographical error I had not even noticed (and hence don't think is really that notable), until you decided to randomly blame it on no child left behind making toddlers of students? Its a bad policy, I grant you. But its a wild red herring as to why simple typographical errors happen, or why this congressman is supposedly stuck with the mental development as a toddler.
And since I'm here, neither spelling or grammar will measure intelligence. Spelling (or typing) just isn't his strong point. Infantilizing people over spelling mistakes is a great way to dehumanize them, which was a significant portion of the purpose of imposing formality on spelling and grammer by acadamia in the late 1800s. (Guess why).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "refence"?
It's "grammar", yokel! HA HA HA HA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "refence"?
You may have missed the /ironic tag, "grammer by acadamia"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No excuse for poor spelling.
Perhaps I'm simply a product of a previous generation. But email? The Internet? There is no timetable. There are spellchecking tools. The excuses for bad spelling vanish when you look at them squarely.
Being willing to leave spelling errors (and to a lesser extent grammatical ones) is a mindset. Settling for a low standard, when even a slightly higher one requires only nominal effort.
But not the only purpose. Phonetic spelling, dialectic phrasing, both make communication more difficult, require additional parsing on the part of the reader. In more extreme cases, it serves as an actual barrier to understanding. Vocabulary drift makes things difficult enough. (google "18th century vocabulary". Also see: Modern Scots language) Standardizing spelling, standardizing sentence format, both support communication.
So spurn ye accepted modern spelling and grammar as ye please. But expect not the accolades of academia - nor yet the populous - as a consequence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No excuse for poor spelling.
and even better: the word I was searching for was populace.
I blame my vocabulary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No excuse for poor spelling.
I blame my vocabulary.
That makes a change from blaming the constabulary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No excuse for poor spelling.
Lol, it continues
“ Populous is an global architectural and design practice specializing …”
~Wikipedia
Is an global?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "refence"?
Is that you and your favorite stalking horse, or are there multiple people lately with this No Child Without a Conspiracy Theory gig?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...you should probably consult your company's legal reps before issuing legal threats."
Taking bets that he doesn't have legal reps...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh I dunno, TD's covered a few in the past that would probably fit right in with a company/CEO like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And, if lawyer gossip has any validity, it's not like they'll listen to the damn experts they hire anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whats that phrase again...
oh yes...
Christ what an asshole
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incorrect name
Great article! However the IPVM reporter is Isabella Cheng, not Isabella Chen. You can see her name listed on the editorial staff page: https://ipvm.com/reports/editorial-staff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incorrect name
Seems like Tim Typing strikes again lol. Thanks for the correction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pull the trigger on a lawsuit
I see your unloaded water pistol, and I'll raise you a fully-armed and operational Streisand Effect.
And I guess Backstreet Surveillance wants it that way, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUKgeAKTaXM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesus, Scott, WTAF i don't even. Running for governor somewhere or what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looked at their product, it looked like it is generic asian commercial / residential junk re-labeled "Backstreet". Same product is sold by many others.
Would be interesting to look at the list of vendors they buy from and follow the shell companies back to the original manufacturers in asia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone doth protest too much?
Two possible explanations come to mind to explain the explosive response, either they might not have gone through all the needed steps for the 'certification' they were touting or their CEO is a spoiled brat of a child pretending to be an adult in a company where any actual adults are humoring him and when 'manchild throwing tantrum' is the better possibility...
Either way, not a good look.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excellent advice
This is excellent advise. I urge every single government and law enforcement agency to fully follow this advice.
after all, no-one gets any safer by scooting crime ten yards around the corner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CEO likely did contact a lawyer, who told him he did not have a leg to stand on.
So, tantrum time instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, that didn't mean he actually did, it could just mean that the lawyer knew the number of billable hours and lack of potential consequences that could be involved if he doesn't win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The amount owed on the judgement would be on a computer.
All she will have to do is break into to that computer, and erase the debt, and she will not owe it anymore
Then throw the computer she uses to do it in the river, bay, or whatever to deep six the evidence so no criminal evidence can be recovered.
No evidence = NO CASE
If carefully planned, you will NOT get caught.
It is a matter of careefully planning it so you will never be caught.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Entry level?
I have never seen an entry level programmer willing to just make something up and put it on the corporate web site, rather than getting the exact text spelled out by somebody at a higher pay grade. Top level bus throwing going on here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]