5 ms·
I see what you're saying, the consequences don't outway the benefit of breaking the law; Congress can solve that through tougher penalties. That said, I feel c
by redm 9y ago
I see what you're saying, the consequences don't outway the benefit of breaking the law; Congress can solve that through tougher penalties. That said, I feel confident the answer is not putting MORE people in Prison, especially for civil cases. The US already incarcerates far too many people. It's out of control as it is. [1] [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_ra...
[2] "Comparing some countries with similar percentages of immigrants, Germany has an incarceration rate of 76 per 100,000 population (as of 2014),[25] Italy is 85 per 100,000 (as of 2015),[26] and Saudi Arabia is 161 per 100,000 (as of 2013).[27] Comparing other countries with a zero tolerance policy for illegal drugs, the rate of Russia is 455 per 100,000 (as of 2015),[28] Kazakhstan is 275 per 100,000 (as of 2015),[29] Singapore is 220 per 100,000 (as of 2014),[30] and Sweden is 60 per 100,000 (as of 2014).[31]"
- busterarm 9y agoIf we applied the same laws around not profiting off of violent crimes to white collar crime AND extended that to company stakeholders as well, investors would make executives knock off that sort of behavior real quick.
- redm 9y agoAre you suggesting that invasion of privacy become a criminal offense? Effectively, that's what happened here, and even though its Uber, its individuals who did it. Your neighbor could do it to you as well. This seems like a slippery slope of criminalizing far too much. For example, maybe Nick Denton should have gone to jail for invasion of privacy against Hulk Hogan? I don't agree with that either.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoViolating HIPAA and PII when your a company carries steep penalties; why not against individuals as well?
- iagreeentirely 9y agoWhy mention individuals? This wasn't something dudeface did for his own entertainment. It was done specifically because the rapist was an uber driver. This was a company mishandling HIPAA data in that they never should have had access to it in the first place, let alone been sharing it around the exec staff like a pulp comic. I will say this clearly and I mean it: If you use uber, or you work for uber, you are morally wrong. You are choosing to enrich people and a company who have shown you multiple times that they are terrible human beings who lack even the concept of a moral compass.
- dragonwriter 9y agoHIPAA's civil and criminal penalties already apply to individuals. OTOH, Uber and it's employees are not HIPAA covered entities, nor, generally, are doctors in India. So I don't see how anyone could have violated HIPAA here.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoI appreciate you taking the time to point out loopholes that need fixing.
- jimmywanger 9y agoI don't think that HIPAA not applying outside of the United States is a loophole. Each country is a different environment, and the laws need to be tailored for the environment. There seems to be an insatiable need for Americans or Westerners to project their laws/moralities to other countries, and then refuse the accept the reverse, except for certain cultural minorities logical inconsistencies.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoThe US extends sex trafficking laws outside the country. Why not other laws?
- 9y ago
- openasocket 9y agoExcept in this case we're talking about private medical records. There is no way for them to have gotten those legally. They had to have bribed someone or coerced someone to get them, and that certainly is a crime.
- model_s 9y agoYeah, I'd agree that it's out of control. But fiscally dangerous might not be enough. Can help the problem by not jailing petty crime.
- leggomylibro 9y agoWe could focus on putting DIFFERENT people in prison, though. We could prioritize crimes that treats human beings as chattel for personal gain, or by the number of people an action harmed.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y agoI'm confident that putting more white collar criminals in prison is a solution to both problems. The percentage of white collar criminals would still be low (ie, won't change the incarceration numbers much), and it would connect more influential families to the problems with our prison system instead of having a classist divide on who it impacts. I propose that we institute "murder" enhancements: any financial crime that causes more than $9mil in damages (the cost of a life [0]) must carry the same penalty as a murder (with the same level of intent, eg, planned versus unplanned); add multiplier for every additional $9mil in damages (ie, $9mil-17.9mil is 1x, $18-26.9mil is 2x, etc); leaders of organizations should be charged equivalently to leaders of other criminal enterprises -- if your organization committed $9bil in fraud, you should be charged as a leader of an organization which committed 1,000 murders. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#United_States
- dpark 9y agoYou can't directly equate lives and dollars. This is an arbitrary thing you're attempting to define, and the flip side of the argument is that a wealthy person should be able to pay $9MM instead of being incarcerated for murder.
- WindyCityBrew 9y agoI'll echo other replies and agree that we should put different people in prison, not more. I'd argue that white collar crime hurts more people than consensual and most violent crimes and it should be punished as such.
- s73ver 9y agoI would be more than happy to exchange many of the non-violent offenders who ended up doing not much harm on an absolute scale with these white collar criminals who end up harming many, many more people.