Samsung Tried to Bribe Chinese Man To Keep Exploding Phone Video Private (gizmodo.com)

An anonymous reader writes: When a Galaxy Note 7 caught fire in China, its owner started filming the damage. That's to be expected. What was less expected was how Samsung reacted to news that one of its phones caught on fire. According to The New York Times, Samsung didn't rush out to try to find out why this user's phone exploded, it tried to bribe him to keep the video private. From the New York Times report; "Two employees from Samsung Electronics showed up at his house later that day, he said, offering a new Note 7 and about $900 in compensation on the condition that he keep the video private. Mr. Zhang angrily refused. Only weeks before, even as Samsung recalled more than two million Note 7s in the United States and elsewhere, the company had reassured him and other Chinese customers that the phone was safe. 'They said there was no problem with the phones in China. That's why I bought a Samsung,' said Mr. Zhang, a 23-year-old former firefighter. 'This is an issue of deception. They are cheating Chinese consumers.'"

Comments

I call shenanigans

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm telling you those were stooges hired by Apple to make Samsung and Android look bad just like Apple and their mindless hipster horde is behind these explosions.

Bribe?

[jandersen]

Let's try to use words with some integrity; bribery is a criminal offence, whereas what Samsung allegedly did was to try to buy the guy's silence, which is merely odious, but not a crime.

Re:Bribe?

[Ol Olsoc]

Let's try to use words with some integrity; bribery is a criminal offence, whereas what Samsung allegedly did was to try to buy the guy's silence, which is merely odious, but not a crime.

Oh geesh, Do you think that anyone equated bribing an elected official with giving a private citizen money in exchange for keep ing their yap shut?

Give us some credit for a little intelligence.

Re:Bribe?

[jandersen]

Give us some credit for a little intelligence.

Give me a good reason.

Re: Bribe?

[thundercattt]

I'd say pfffffft at $900 bucks too. Up it to a million and we'd talk.

Re:Bribe?

[macs4all]

Let's try to use words with some integrity; bribery is a criminal offence, whereas what Samsung allegedly did was to try to buy the guy's silence, which is merely odious, but not a crime.

Here's the problem with your argument: If there had actually BEEN a word that described this "buying of silence" other than what you are describing is a "term of art" for the "influencing a public official", you would have INCLUDED that word in your pedantic diatribe.

The fact that there is NOT a separate word for "bribe as a tort" (essentially), means that the word "bribe" is used to describe BOTH the CRIMINAL and NON-CRIMINAL acts.

Only $900?

[Tempest_2084]

If you're going to bribe someone to keep a major, possibly company destroying, event secret then you should probably offer him more than $900. Cheap out on the bribes and it will come back to bite you in the end.

Yes Bribe

[sjbe]

Let's try to use words with some integrity; bribery is a criminal offence, whereas what Samsung allegedly did was to try to buy the guy's silence, which is merely odious, but not a crime.

Let's consult a dictionary shall we?

bribe
verb: bribe; 3rd person present: bribes; past tense: bribed; past participle: bribed; gerund or present participle: bribing
        1 : money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust
        2 : something that serves to induce or influence

These alleged actions by Samsung were definitely attempts at bribery by definition. Their actions may or may not have been criminal depending on the local laws but they definitely were bribery.

expected

[frovingslosh]

When a Galaxy Note 7 caught fire in China, its owner started filming the damage. That's to be expected .

My thoughts too. If you really believe that your phone is safe and you are not planning for this, why and how do you have another video recording device handy? Of course, the could be a legitimate answer to this, but it also could be that this was a complete set-up and the second camera was so handy because the phone destruction was planned. Maybe the bribe just wasn't in the range that this film maker expected.