4 ms·

I think it's time we tie criminal/civil fines/fees to income. I'll even accept net. All I know is when I'm fined, there's a possibility that it might be the l

I think it's time we tie criminal/civil fines/fees to income. I'll even accept net. All I know is when I'm fined, there's a possibility that it might be the last straw. The last straw to homelessness. When a rich man, or remotely successful corporation is fined it's just someting to talk about. It seems to violate one of those admendments that people seem to forget about--the 8th? It doesn't matter because nothing will change.

rqebmm 11y ago
That's all well and good until that rich person/corporation has applied some creative accounting to create a net loss on the books, thus negating their fine.
- mioelnir 11y ago
  Day-fines calculations here in Germany are calculated from monthly income after tax, with some fixed basic-living deductions. I do not think there is anything more you can deduct from it - but it is clearly intended for persons not corporations. But with the usual limitation of a maximum of 360 days and the min/max limits being 5/30'000 EUR the absolute amount of a maximum 360-day fine can vary between EUR 1'800 and EUR 10'800'000. Such systems can be made, they can work and I think they can be made loophole free.
asuffield 11y ago
That's not unreasonable in principle, but then it gets more complicated: do you propose to hold the entire company accountable for the actions of a small part of it? If not, then it devolves into the kind of accounting complexity that results in random internet outrage because it's beyond the understanding of most people. If you do propose to hold the entire company accountable for any action taken in its name, then consider what you are enforcing: this would mean companies would be immediately obliged to disempower their entire staff from making decisions at any level, and require review and approval for all actions, to make sure that nobody ever makes a mistake that could be punitively expensive. Neither of these is going to turn out to be a simple solution to a complex problem. Worse, you can't even use a simple rule here, because what do you do about companies that aren't making a profit? Do they effectively have carte blanche to violate the law in order to improve their situation? That's probably not what you want, so you'd end up with some complicated mix of both systems.
- a1a 11y ago
  In theory it would be great to if the fine was based on the extra profit generated from using the super cookie (compared to using a legal cookie). Next thing to take in to account is the degree/duration of the privacy violation and multiply this number by the number of users who have had their privacy violated. Deciding this number is beyond my economics skills -- and quite beyond my point -- because I want to say that it is more reasonable to base the fine on the actual violation and not the business as a whole.
- narag 11y ago
  That's not unreasonable in principle, but then it gets more complicated: do you propose to hold the entire company accountable for the actions of a small part of it? Of course. this would mean companies would be immediately obliged to disempower their entire staff No. Their entire staff is already "disempowered" to make decisions that could put the company in legal trouble. Also this is intended, not merely reckless. Do you really believe this was some nobody's idea? Come on! Please, someone with real legal knowledge could you explain why this is not like Volkswagen. I suspect that privacy violations are not quantified or else a "class action" would dry any and all the profits.
  - asuffield 11y ago
    There's a big difference between "not authorised" (the current reality) and "disempowered". You are not authorised to send emails that place the company in legal jeopardy. You are disempowered from doing so if every email that you send has to be reviewed by a company officer first. The norm today is that you are trusted to not exceed the limits of your authority. How about every line of code that you write being reviewed by legal to make sure it was within the bounds of the law? There's plenty of scope here for a far more defensive position on ensuring compliance. That is what you would expect and desire from any attempt to massively increase the liability of errors, no?
    - narag 11y ago
      So were you talking about sending emails? OK then. I don't know why I thought it was about a deal of hundred of thousands or maybe millions of dollars affecting customers' privacy :->
Gibbon1 11y ago
I think all fines should have to be handed over to the social security administration. Has two benefits one tends to dissuade law enforcement to go after people just because they have money. Two encourages law enforcement to toss people in jail. Right now larger corporations agree to pay fines in return for officers of the corporation not going to jail. That should change. Corporations not being able to pay a large bride in shareholder money would push things in the correct direction.

rqebmm 11y ago

That's all well and good until that rich person/corporation has applied some creative accounting to create a net loss on the books, thus negating their fine.

mioelnir 11y ago
Day-fines calculations here in Germany are calculated from monthly income after tax, with some fixed basic-living deductions. I do not think there is anything more you can deduct from it - but it is clearly intended for persons not corporations. But with the usual limitation of a maximum of 360 days and the min/max limits being 5/30'000 EUR the absolute amount of a maximum 360-day fine can vary between EUR 1'800 and EUR 10'800'000. Such systems can be made, they can work and I think they can be made loophole free.

asuffield 11y ago

That's not unreasonable in principle, but then it gets more complicated: do you propose to hold the entire company accountable for the actions of a small part of it? If not, then it devolves into the kind of accounting complexity that results in random internet outrage because it's beyond the understanding of most people. If you do propose to hold the entire company accountable for any action taken in its name, then consider what you are enforcing: this would mean companies would be immediately obliged to disempower their entire staff from making decisions at any level, and require review and approval for all actions, to make sure that nobody ever makes a mistake that could be punitively expensive. Neither of these is going to turn out to be a simple solution to a complex problem. Worse, you can't even use a simple rule here, because what do you do about companies that aren't making a profit? Do they effectively have carte blanche to violate the law in order to improve their situation? That's probably not what you want, so you'd end up with some complicated mix of both systems.

a1a 11y ago
In theory it would be great to if the fine was based on the extra profit generated from using the super cookie (compared to using a legal cookie). Next thing to take in to account is the degree/duration of the privacy violation and multiply this number by the number of users who have had their privacy violated. Deciding this number is beyond my economics skills -- and quite beyond my point -- because I want to say that it is more reasonable to base the fine on the actual violation and not the business as a whole.
narag 11y ago
That's not unreasonable in principle, but then it gets more complicated: do you propose to hold the entire company accountable for the actions of a small part of it? Of course. this would mean companies would be immediately obliged to disempower their entire staff No. Their entire staff is already "disempowered" to make decisions that could put the company in legal trouble. Also this is intended, not merely reckless. Do you really believe this was some nobody's idea? Come on! Please, someone with real legal knowledge could you explain why this is not like Volkswagen. I suspect that privacy violations are not quantified or else a "class action" would dry any and all the profits.
- asuffield 11y ago
  There's a big difference between "not authorised" (the current reality) and "disempowered". You are not authorised to send emails that place the company in legal jeopardy. You are disempowered from doing so if every email that you send has to be reviewed by a company officer first. The norm today is that you are trusted to not exceed the limits of your authority. How about every line of code that you write being reviewed by legal to make sure it was within the bounds of the law? There's plenty of scope here for a far more defensive position on ensuring compliance. That is what you would expect and desire from any attempt to massively increase the liability of errors, no?
  - narag 11y ago
    So were you talking about sending emails? OK then. I don't know why I thought it was about a deal of hundred of thousands or maybe millions of dollars affecting customers' privacy :->

Gibbon1 11y ago

I think all fines should have to be handed over to the social security administration. Has two benefits one tends to dissuade law enforcement to go after people just because they have money. Two encourages law enforcement to toss people in jail. Right now larger corporations agree to pay fines in return for officers of the corporation not going to jail. That should change. Corporations not being able to pay a large bride in shareholder money would push things in the correct direction.