Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> execs could go to jail instead of just their company paying fines as if they're parking tickets?

You want to send an executive to jail for cancelling a contract?

I’d be curious for a jurisdiction to try this. In my opinion, I wouldn’t want to do business in a place where commercial disputes can be twisted by a political insider into jail time.



> I wouldn’t want to do business in a place …

And that's rather the point. Apple earns a lot of money in the EU and much of that seems to be through abusing their position.

So yes, if you're the executive who signs off on something that is so clearly anticompetative, you should own the penalty. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.

That, or leave.


It’s still to be determined if this is illegal.


It’s also to be determined whether somebody will go to jail for that and criminal law already errs on the side of defendant.

It changes the risk appetite, sure, but that’s the point.


You're ignoring the second half of that sentence, and pretending like the laws will only ever be enforced morally.


I'm not ignoring it, it's just irrelevant.

Anything you do —atomically legal or not— becomes illegal if it smothers the chance of competition by using you market dominance.

The thing I'm arguing here is that the person taking those decisions faces consequences.


> twisted by a political insider into jail time

No - you seem to be assuming such a law would only be invoked in cases where the company legitimately did something wrong. But that's not what's at stake here. We're talking about what happens when someone with political clout and a vendetta is able to use that law to wrongfully get a a CEO tossed in prison. Because sometimes laws get twisted for personal gain, and you're raising the stakes pretty high.

I wouldn't want to do business under those conditions, not because I might violate the law, but because it could be used wrongfully against me.


Considering how impactful some executive decisions can be why would this be so inconceivable? A CEO can definitely cause more harm to a community than a shoplifter and we have no qualms about sending them to jail. If there was a clear mens rhea to cause harm or awareness of that harm and a disregard for the consequences to others then why shouldn't we treat it similarly?


> If there was a clear mens rhea to cause harm or awareness of that harm and a disregard for the consequences to others then why shouldn't we treat it similarly?

Yes, and we do. That’s well below the threshold of commercial disputes.


Public servants can and do go to jail for corruption, so should private sector officials for certain acts.

It’s much better for a shareholder too, as I for example don’t want to pay with my money for ceo’s ego trips.


Do you want to send executives to jail when their products kill people? The line has to be drawn somewhere, and if there is no (functioning) regulatory oversight then businesses will absolutely not self-regulate.


PG&E caused the death of hundreds and the loss of hundreds of homes, and they've done it multiple times. Is there regulatory oversight because I'm not seeing it. They will happily cut corners in the name of profit even if it means killing people.


Fair enough, no jail time then but how about the personal liability in money. You fuck up, it's your own money you gotta pay with, not the company's bottomless war-chest.


> You fuck up, it's your own money you gotta pay with, not the company's bottomless war-chest.

Sort of good and sort of bad - some percentage of the time this would lead to zero money changing hands as the executive is bankrupt or has no assets.


> it's your own money you gotta pay with, not the company's

I agree with this, and it could be constructed out of shareholder rights. Perhaps it could only be applied past a certain threshold of compensation, say, 100x the median wage. ($4.6mm [1].)

I’d argue the threshold should be final, unappealable regulatory penalty or criminal conviction of the corporation.

[1] https://usafacts.org/data/topics/economy/jobs-and-income/job...


Do you also not drive a car in a place where your driving can be twisted into jail time when you hurt people?

Why does the concept of personal responsibility for decisions insult you so deeply?


> Do you also not drive a car in a place where your driving can be twisted into jail time when you hurt people?

If you believe figurative and actual violence are identical, this analogy makes sense.


People can and do go to the prison in many instances when companies are just fined for similar offense.


What are those kind of offense which company or individual commit equally?


Tax evasion. Bribes (sorry, I meant lobbying). In case of self-driving cars, literally running over people.


People go to jail for non-violent crimes as well.

Again, why does personal responsibility for harm to others bother you?


> why does personal responsibility for harm to others bother you?

Personal responsibility is irrelevant. You’re constructing a lower threshold for criminality. I know the first thing I’d be trying to figure out is how to put my competitors in jail.

Let’s take Epic v Apple. Epic went to court. It lost. This entire saga has cost Epic’s shareholders billions. Should Sweeney go to jail? Would the world be better if an Apple-friendly prosecutor could take up that challenge?

If we have a cultural failing in America, it’s having a reflexive urge to turn outrage into jail time.


> I know the first thing I’d be trying to figure out is how to put my competitors in jail.

Provide an incentive for companies to regulate each other! Let rational self-interest clean up the market while the state steps back and looks on!


> Provide an incentive for companies to regulate each other

Do you think there is a reason every modern democracy resists privatising criminal prosecution? (They had it in Rome. We probably need a history of law section in the basic high-school curriculum.)


The justice system in this hypothetical would not be private, it's just that companies would be trying to sue each other for breaking the rules, accidentally advancing the public interest.


> companies would be trying to sue each other for breaking the rules

We already have private enforcement of many rules. Environmental ones, for example. We’re specifically discussing criminality, putting people in jail.


Fair enough. I just see it as an escalation in deterrence.


Economic violence is a form of violence - it isn't identical to physical violence... but violence can take many forms.


> violence can take many forms

This is a bogus modernist interpretation that dilutes the meaning of violence. Fortunately, it’s being rejected after having a moment that peaked during lockdown.


Earlier in the threat someone mentions PG & E and how their negligence resulted in deaths.

How should this be treated? Fining the company for someone’s actions that caused deaths doesn’t seem enough.


Does not this already happen in case of fraud pretty much everywhere?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: