5 ms·
>No, it should read 'if big bad things happen, you pay us the damages'. It would be utterly ridiculous for any person to sign a contract that said "In the even
by jusaduder 9y ago
>No, it should read 'if big bad things happen, you pay us the damages'.
It would be utterly ridiculous for any person to sign a contract that said "In the event this company gets hacked, you a personally liable." I wouldn't, and you wouldn't either.
- subway 9y agoI did this frequently when I was a contractor/consultant. I also retained insurance to mitigate the risk to myself.
- Aaargh20318 9y agoThat's fine, but then you get a normal salary. If you claim you are responsible for the performance of the company, that goes both ways. You can't claim responsibility ONLY when things go well (and rake in large amounts of cash) and then when things go to shit suddenly act like you had nothing to do with it.
- dogruck 9y agoSuch a contract would attract charlatains -- guys like Bernie Madoff. And then, when they found a data breech, they'd pull every trick to keep it hidden. No doubt that CEOs should be held responsible. And here the board would say, yes, that's why we fired him.
- Aaargh20318 9y ago> Such a contract would attract charlatains No it wouldn't. The current contracts do that. The CEO can basically take huge risks with the company at zero personal risk. If it pans out, he gets a huge bonus, if it fails he bails out with a huge severance package and no personal consequences. It's the same mechanism that got us into the financial crisis. Executives have every reason to take huge risks and none to play it safe.
- notyourday 9y ago> It would be utterly ridiculous for any person to sign a contract that said "In the event this company gets hacked, you a personally liable." I wouldn't, and you wouldn't either Same claim was made before SOX forced attestations.