4 ms·

> If I jammed public spectrum in order to profit, I'd be in prison. Is this true? Can someone cite examples of this happening?

mikeash 11y ago
Here's a fellow who spent 15 months in prison for jamming ham radio, so not even for profit: http://www.eham.net/articles/3908 http://www.eham.net/articles/3908 This guy got seven years, but he was interfering with public safety radios operated by police and the like, so that's not the same: http://www.eham.net/articles/14858 http://www.eham.net/articles/14858 Looking at other convictions, it seems that the more usual punishment is arrest, probation, and a massive fine. Even compared to that, fining a big hotel $600,000 is a joke.
- newjersey 11y ago
  I want the board to go to jail, not some low level janitor. Or do we only go as high as the paper trail takes us? This lets companies erect firewalls and appear innocent like the vw CEO...
  - AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
    The alternative is imprisoning people without evidence. I'll take guilty people going free anyday.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      Or, tweaking the law along the lines that corporate executives are vicariously liable for the job related misdeeds of their underlings, if it can be shown they did or should have known about the goings on and did nothing to stop it. Suddenly, there will be a lot more care about ethical behavior..
      - newjersey 11y ago
        Owners and board members of companies should be liable not just for the action of their employees but also the actions of their subcontractors. Otherwise, we will have situations like the one John Oliver mocked in the North Dakota petroleum industry. http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/10/12/john_oliver_exposes_the_dark_side_of_north_dakota_s_oil_boom_on_last_week.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/10/12/john_oliver_e...
      - cgriswald 11y ago
        I don't agree. People should not go to prison for crimes committed by others. We should still have to show each individual is guilty, including the executives. But I don't think that would solve the problem anyway. Owners and shareholders will still be immune. They will simply hire figurehead executives to sign things and speak at events. These people are financially motivated, so the punishment should be financial. Most criminals don't think they are going to be caught anyway, so prison isn't a disincentive. Financial punishment may not be a disincentive either (but I suspect for most shareholders it would), but it has the effect of reducing the efficacy of bad actors, leading to better outcomes overall. The real problem is the fines are usually far outweighed by the profits from acting in this manner. Make the punishment an audit at the end of which they must pay the costs of the independent audit (whether done by private third party or government) as well as a multiplier on whatever profits were determined to stem from the elicit activity.
        mikeash 11y ago
        Yes, fines might be effective if they were bigger. Many of the people I found while searching got fines that probably equated to something like a year's salary. Fine these companies an amount comparable to a year's revenue and I bet things would change in a hurry.
        Karunamon 11y ago
        I didn't say anything about prison, but the term used was carefully chosen in that in some capacities, you are liable for the actions of other people. While I agree with you about prison not working, fining a multibillion dollar company the equivalent of a few day's profits aren't good enough. The fines need to be much more strident, along the lines of administrative dissolution or something else that would motivate the top brass via angry shareholders.

mikeash 11y ago

Here's a fellow who spent 15 months in prison for jamming ham radio, so not even for profit: http://www.eham.net/articles/3908 http://www.eham.net/articles/3908 This guy got seven years, but he was interfering with public safety radios operated by police and the like, so that's not the same: http://www.eham.net/articles/14858 http://www.eham.net/articles/14858 Looking at other convictions, it seems that the more usual punishment is arrest, probation, and a massive fine. Even compared to that, fining a big hotel $600,000 is a joke.

newjersey 11y ago
I want the board to go to jail, not some low level janitor. Or do we only go as high as the paper trail takes us? This lets companies erect firewalls and appear innocent like the vw CEO...
- AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
  The alternative is imprisoning people without evidence. I'll take guilty people going free anyday.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    Or, tweaking the law along the lines that corporate executives are vicariously liable for the job related misdeeds of their underlings, if it can be shown they did or should have known about the goings on and did nothing to stop it. Suddenly, there will be a lot more care about ethical behavior..
    - newjersey 11y ago
      Owners and board members of companies should be liable not just for the action of their employees but also the actions of their subcontractors. Otherwise, we will have situations like the one John Oliver mocked in the North Dakota petroleum industry. http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/10/12/john_oliver_exposes_the_dark_side_of_north_dakota_s_oil_boom_on_last_week.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/10/12/john_oliver_e...
    - cgriswald 11y ago
      I don't agree. People should not go to prison for crimes committed by others. We should still have to show each individual is guilty, including the executives. But I don't think that would solve the problem anyway. Owners and shareholders will still be immune. They will simply hire figurehead executives to sign things and speak at events. These people are financially motivated, so the punishment should be financial. Most criminals don't think they are going to be caught anyway, so prison isn't a disincentive. Financial punishment may not be a disincentive either (but I suspect for most shareholders it would), but it has the effect of reducing the efficacy of bad actors, leading to better outcomes overall. The real problem is the fines are usually far outweighed by the profits from acting in this manner. Make the punishment an audit at the end of which they must pay the costs of the independent audit (whether done by private third party or government) as well as a multiplier on whatever profits were determined to stem from the elicit activity.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        Yes, fines might be effective if they were bigger. Many of the people I found while searching got fines that probably equated to something like a year's salary. Fine these companies an amount comparable to a year's revenue and I bet things would change in a hurry.
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        I didn't say anything about prison, but the term used was carefully chosen in that in some capacities, you are liable for the actions of other people. While I agree with you about prison not working, fining a multibillion dollar company the equivalent of a few day's profits aren't good enough. The fines need to be much more strident, along the lines of administrative dissolution or something else that would motivate the top brass via angry shareholders.