As we head into the holidays, I just want to say that it is not our goal to engage in our online campaign simply to hurt people. Like a parent, I feel bad having to punish a recalcitrant child. However, this was absolutely needed.
We will challenge Kent Security legally and it is our aim to have the case judged purely on its merits. Regardless of the outcome, we will likely remove all of our online truth-telling eventually. The reason for this is because we don't want to hurt the primary owners and the employees. It is not our aim to have any material gain from this whatsoever. I would have preferred that none of this ever occurred from the beginning.
However, at some point, online activism is necessary. Because rights can be eroded at any time, it is important to continually fight for them. Undoubtedly, many security officers are more aware of their rights due to our activism, both online and offline.
Ultimately, we would like to make peace with the owners of Kent Security. However, we feel the CEO has let the company down and failed to protect the company from this angle of attack, which in hindsight was totally preventable. This should be seen not so much as a malicious attack from a disgruntled employee as the CEO's failure to protect the family name and business. Sooner or later, the company was bound to face this type of attack, given that the internet is a primary means of information and communication today, and given the CEO's misconduct according to public records.
We will have more to say on this in the future.
Addendum: It's obvious the CEO is bankrolled above him, as his litigious nature is counterproductive for any business, especially from a public relations standpoint. The Hurley fiasco cost $250,000 -- virtually all non-recoverable, most likely -- and would have cost over $1 million had the jury verdict not been reversed. As a matter of opinion, the litigious record is devastating for any CEO. It just vaporizes any credibility of the face of the company. The "Wall of Shame" scandal likewise has damaged the image of the company, hurting the other owners of the company who had no direct involvement in the situation.