9 ms·

It's good that people are being held accountable, but I'm unsure that prison is an effective mechanism here (or for many other crimes, for that matter). I mean

It's good that people are being held accountable, but I'm unsure that prison is an effective mechanism here (or for many other crimes, for that matter). I mean, what's the goal exactly? I'd say the risk of recidivism is about nil, so it's not about protecting society from him, or about rehabilitation. So the goal must be to discourage others from committing similar offenses. Fair enough, but there must be a better and more efficient way to accomplish that than locking people in a compound for several years. In this case, the financial penalties imposed on the companies themselves seem like a more effective tool.

danielbarla 9y ago
Why can't we have both (which seems to be happening in this case)? It seems like it's appropriate and efficient, and will actively discourage people from similar activities, at the individual level.
- theWatcher37 9y ago
  OP seems to dance around saying the idea that punishing people is wrong. OP is wrong. We want cultural and financial incentives not to do wrong. We also want raw primal fear, if you do this evil shit they’re gonna get you and lock you away forever type fear... if you do this stuff.
  - tempestn 9y ago
    I don't believe that punishing people is wrong. I believe that punishing people is a waste of resources unless it accomplishes useful goals, such as discouraging that person or others from behaving in a similar manner in the future. And if you accept that that is the goal, it is then logical to put resources toward the most efficient means of accomplishing it, to maximize your chances of success. I find it unlikely that long prison terms are that most efficient means in most cases (an exception might be dangerous likely re-offenders), given considerable evidence that it is ineffective in discouraging most forms of crime, and in some cases can increase likelihood of engagement in crime by ex-convicts. Edit: there probably is value in some amount of prison time as a deterrent though, as I elaborate on in the comment below. My main point is that I highly doubt there is anything like a linear relationship, if any relationship at all, between the length of prison sentences and the effectiveness of the deterrent. And given that (if in fact it's true,) we might as well keep sentences reasonably short, and use the resources saved more effectively.
    - yeukhon 9y ago
      So what exactly do you propose? I agree that yes drug dealers and likes don’t stop selling drugs or killing people because of prison sentence. But they are afraid of cops because they prefer not to get locked up. Likewise capital punishment does not prevent or lower murderer rate. There is no correlation at all. So we have to seperate prevention and fear. The fear that you’d have to go to jail is the reason why punishment exists. we want people to know their actions are always held accountable in the perfect system - but unfortunately not..... Prevention is education and make sure every community has a fair balance of income - a poor community is of course going to have a high crime in theory.
      - tempestn 9y ago
        I don't have all the answers. And I do think some amount of prison as a deterrent is probably effective. But consider this: how many things would you consider doing if getting caught would mean a year in prison, but wouldn't do if it could mean 10 years? I can't think of very many. Like, assume you have no other reason to avoid doing these things, so it's something you saw as a completely moral act. Either one I'm going to do everything possible to avoid; I'll avoid the act if it isn't completely necessary, and if I perceive that it is, I'll do whatever I can to avoid getting caught. But I can't see my behaviour really changing based on the length of the term - what would be _worth_ a year in prison but not 10? (Especially considering that in any kind of theft or something along those lines, you're not going to get to keep what you took if caught.) Now, I'm a pretty analytical person, so I'm probably most likely to be affected by deterrents (although perhaps also most likely to believe I could avoid getting caught!) A more impulsive criminal might not consider the possible consequences much at all; certainly not enough to distinguish between a low or high number of years locked up. So if we take it as a given that long prison terms are not particularly more effective at deterrence than short ones - and I believe there is evidence to back that up, but I'm not an expert; if I were actually in a position to change these things I'd obviously do the research! - and that keeping people in prison costs a large amount of money, it seems to me best to reduce prison terms to the minimum degree possible while maintaining their deterrent benefit, and to redirect the savings into things that evidence suggests are effective in reducing crime (education, social programs, etc.) Ironically, given my initial comment, this kind of highly calculated crime (the VW emissions) is probably most likely to be deterred by prison sentences. Once again though, I don't expect a long sentence (and 7 years seems long to me for a non-violent crime) would be any more effective than a short one. I mean, would you risk _any_ non-trivial amount of time behind bars just to help your bosses make more money?
confounded 9y ago
I think you may have mistaken the justice system as fair or rational. The justice system punishes people. There are around 2.2M people in US prisons. Schmidt was involved in corruption --- for profit --- which duped ordinary people into releasing around 1MM tons of pollution in to the atmosphere in a single year; about the same as all the power generation for the 66 million people in the UK. What's the scale of the damage that most of the other 2.2M people in prison did? Sold some drugs? Stole a crappy old car?
- tempestn 9y ago
  I don't disagree with you at all. In fact, I would hope that if one were to see locking this middle manager in prison as pointless, it could act as a mental stepping stone to reconsidering the purpose of the prison system in general.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Experience suggests the actual result will be a two-tiered justice system where rich criminals are far less likely to go to prison, even when committing serious crimes.
- brango 9y ago
  > The justice system punishes people. There are around 2.2M people in US prisons. The justice system punishes society by failing to adequately rehabilitate offenders. As a result many go on to reoffend. So really the current system is only punishing the next innocent victims of crimes perpetrated by released inmates. See the difference in reoffending rates between Norway and the USA, and their different approaches to prison time. For a start, the US views the inmates as "criminals", Norway views the inmates as people who did something illegal.
  - s3nnyy 9y ago
    >"US views the inmates as "criminals", Norway views the inmates as people who did something illegal." Interesting point you are making here. In Norway's case it's "what someone did", and if he stops doing it, it's fine again whereas if you think/say "these people are criminals" it appears as if these people are inherently bad, which is a worse basis to help people improve.
Nicholas7900 9y ago
COMPOSITE HACKS If Truly you Are In Need Of A PROFESSIONAL LEGIT HACKER Who Will Get Your Job Done Efficiently With Swift Response, Congratulations, You Have Met the Right HACKERS. WHO ARE COMPOSITE HACKS??? • We are a Team Of Professional HACKERS , a product of the coming together of Legit Hackers from the Dark-Web, (pentaguard,CyberBerkut, RedHack , Black Hat, White Hack ) we have been existing for over 12years, our system is a very Strong and decentralized command structure that operates on ideas and directives. JOB GUARANTEE: • Frankly speaking, I always give a 100% guarantee on any job we are been asked to do, because we have always been successful in Almost all our jobs for over 12years and our clients can testify to that . To hack any thing needs time though, but we can provide a swift response to your job depending on how fast and urgent you need it. Time also depends on what exactly you want to hack and how serious you are. Enough time with social engineering is required for hacking. So if you want to bind us in a short time, then just don't contact us because We can't hack within 30minutes,sorry. Basically, time depends on your luck. If its good luck, then it is possible to hack within 30minutes but, if it is in the other way round, it would take few hours. I have seen FAKE HACKERS claiming they can hack in 30min, 20min , but there is no REAL HACKER who can say this (AVOID THEM). Please Note : we have only one contact email : compositehacks@gmail.com We will be happy to have you join over 2000 satisfied clients around the world to use our services. OUR HACKING CAPABILITIES: There are so many Reasons why people need to hire a hacker, It might be to Hack a Websites to deface , retrieve information, edit information or give you admin access Some people might need us for Hacking any smart phone giving you access to all activities on the phone like , text messages , call logs , Social media Apps and other informations. Some might need to Hack a Facebook , gmail, yahoomail, Instagram , twitter and every other social network Accounts, Some might need to Hack into Court's Database to Clear criminal records. However we can also Hack into school's websites (server) to change grades without any trace, Also Some Individuals might want to Track someone else's Location probably for investigation cases. All these Are what we can get Done withing few hours. SOME OTHER SPECIAL SERVICES WE OFFER: Hacking and sales of Programmed credit cards & CREDIT CARD TOP-UP Sales of untraceable phones (even the pentagon can not track our phones) Sales of Tutorial packs for Beginner Ethical Hackers. You can also contact us for other Cyber Attacks And Hijackings, we do almost All. Contact Us for Your Desired Service Via: compositehacks@gmail.com We Treat Every Request With Utmost Confidentiality
hvidgaard 9y ago
GDPR in the EU grants authorities ability to fine businesses €20 million or 4% of global revenue, whichever is greatest, when they have a data breach where neglect played a role. I imagine that a fine of similar proportion will have some effect on other companies to not do it. The risk is too great.
- lostlogin 9y ago
  Weird that big business then faces a relatively softer punishment.
  - contravariant 9y ago
    Well this is the maximum punishment, the fine doesn't have to reach those limits if the company can't pay it anyway. In practice I suspect that small businesses either fly under the radar or are given some degree of leniency.
    - kodablah 9y ago
      > I suspect that small businesses either fly under the radar Off topic, but this is what I dislike about the GPDR, the subjective enforcement. Do I as an SMB stop selling to EU because I can't afford the potential fine (risk management of course, never would intentionally violate)? Or do I trust arbitrary selective enforcement?
      - hvidgaard 9y ago
        Unless you explicitly deal with sensitive information, you shouldn't worry.
SturgeonsLaw 9y ago
We've had decades of soft touch corporate fines that haven't done shit to curb bad behaviour (see: banks), those punishments are utterly ineffective. Giving execs who order criminal acts jail time will be far more effective. Just you watch - VW will absolutely colour between the lines now. It's easy to gamble when it's the house's money on the table, but when the instigators face real punishment they'll sharpen right up.
- ohthehugemanate 9y ago
  Emphasis on "soft touch". The punishment amounts of money are often very small compared to the profit gained. In the EU, fines can be expressed as a percentage of annual revenue. So imagine something strict enough to work. I'm sure a fine of 25% of annual global revenue for 10 years would put a lot of pressure where it needs to be, for example.
  - achamayou 9y ago
    The issue with that is that it’s effectively collective punishment for everyone working at VW, whether they had any part in the cheating or not. If also fails to punish individuals who may since have moved on or retired. Targeting the individuals responsible seems more fair and efficient on the whole, if more difficult to implement.
    - wereHamster 9y ago
      Collective punishment incentivises the company to put safeguards into place. Papertrails for all decisions, four eyes principle, transparency etc. Corporations are people, right? Punish the person. The corporation can decide whether to shift the punishment down to the responsible people (conduct their own internal investigation to find the responsible people, and punish them appropriately), and work towards a structure where these things won't happen or can be detected early.
    - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
      Well, maybe its time to start looking at a corporate death penalty. We kill people who do really bad and are convicted. Take it out of the shareholders. Oh, and yes, also imprison executives who do that. This doesn't have to be an either/or. Do both. Or, maybe a few million dollar fine, after they got a profit of a few billion. That'll learn 'em!
bambax 9y ago
Agreed. Some prison time seems warranted but 7 years seems harsh, even considering what he did was very bad and harmful to a lot of people. (But Americans simply love prison, apparently). The ones who are getting off easily, IMHO, are the regulators. Their job would be to make sure cars respect emissions limits in all contexts, and that would mean actively testing the cars in many different configurations. How is it possible that it never occurred to anyone there, to test cars in real-world conditions, just to make sure the results they were getting weren't contaminated by the normal testing setup? This is utter intellectual laziness and should incur some kind of reprimand. Or maybe regulators should hire Mr Schmidt and put him in charge of future testing. He would know what to look for.
- zorked 9y ago
  "Volkswagen Emissions Scandal Could Cause 1,200 More Premature Deaths" (from vehicles in Germany alone!) Seven years is a very light sentence for this. I would guess that sort of damage makes him easily a top 1% criminal. Of the entire world. [1] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/volkswagen-deaths_us_58b99ff0e4b0b99894173edd https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/volkswagen-deaths_us_58...
  - credit_guy 9y ago
    “could cause N deaths” is very different from “have caused N deaths beyond any reasonable doubt”.
    - wellboy 9y ago
      Could cause 1200 deaths is definitely will cause 10 deaths and probably will definitely cause 300 deaths. Probably you mean, has caused x deaths directly instead of has caused x deaths indirectly?
      - credit_guy 9y ago
        No. To be considered a criminal, you need to be found guilty of a crime, and for that the prosecutors need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you committed the act.
vesinisa 9y ago
From the article: > Mr. Schmidt did not identify any Volkswagen superiors who might have pressured him to lie to regulators. I think the point here is refusal to co-operate with prosecutors. They wanted to know who at Volkswagen told him to lie, and they would have been happy to let him off the hook if he co-operated. He refused, essentially continuing to demonstrate his loyalty to VW and thus perpetuating his complicity in the criminal justice process of the very crime he was now convicted of. He failed to demonstrative effective repentance, and now must serve as warning example to other white collar criminals.
- tempestn 9y ago
  Agreed that it makes sense for that to factor into the punishment.
- rsp1984 9y ago
  Which makes it likely that there is some kind of deal in the background between Schmidt and VW. After all his inside knowledge of the subject matter would be a very powerful weapon for the prosecutors and very dangerous for VW.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    That's incredibly dangerous for all involved. First, it's piling another crime onto all the other crimes. Second, any such agreement, by nature of being illegal, would be unenforceable. Even if he has already collected on it, the company would be required to demand the money back if the deal is ever discovered. Yet if he had somehow managed to hide the money out of the company's reach, he would have been in a position to renege on the deal. TL/DR: don't make illegal deals with criminals who are smart enough to understand the prisoners' dilemma.
    - m_mueller 9y ago
      Then why would he travel to the US?
    - madaxe_again 9y ago
Al-Khwarizmi 9y ago
the risk of recidivism is about nil Why? As far as I know, recidivism in corruption is rather common. And if you send the corruptors home with a pat on the back, it will probably be more common.
- tempestn 9y ago
  Fair point, speaking of corruption in general. I meant more along the lines of doing specifically this again. The situation has changed such that companies are not likely to get away with gaming emissions in this way anymore. But yes, someone inclined to cheat in one way might be inclined to cheat in others.
mtgx 9y ago
I agree with you in principle, but how would you have punished the banks post-2008, for instance? Would you fine them $100 billion? While many were already on the brink of bankruptcy, because of the self-inflicted damage? If anything, they received money from the government to survive. Granted, they should have never been allowed to get to the point where not saving them meant an even bigger crash for the economy. They shouldn't have been allowed to leverage their money as much as they did, and they should have been split up into dozens of smaller banks. But failing that, it seems like imprisonment of wealthy billionaire executives who thought "they've got nothing to lose" if they risk their customers' money the way they did seems like the best option there.
- CoongLiu 9y ago
  The unfortunate reality is that most of the people who win the lottery of life, and luck their way into high levels of the financial industry are essentially untouchable. Exhibit A: https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/thains-regret-not-shopping-at-ikea/ https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/thains-regret-not-sh... Reaches for bailouts with one hand, and then does million dollar refurbishments. Then cracks jokes about it later, after moving on to being a shill wasting space on Ubers board, essentially wasting the time and resources of Uber, by being a paid voice of Kalanick. His decision to piss money so thoughtlessly, and get precisely nothing as punishment is depressing. My friends from Eastern Europe share stories of outrageously corrupt politicians, that everyone knows is corrupt. I sometimes wonder, if many parts of the western world are really so different. Instead of politics, the corrupt parasites congregate at the head of large businesses. It does seem to work out better for them.
alien_at_work 9y ago
> In this case, the financial penalties imposed on the companies themselves seem like a more effective tool. I disagree with this part. Fining the company just pushes prices up to compensate for the loss. It might cause the company to not be competitive and go out of business but that's mostly punishing people who didn't do anything. We need to hold the individuals responsible for their behavior. I agree with you that prison doesn't seem effective but if we use financial penalties they should be harsh and targetting the individual. I suspect someone who has been very rich for decades suddenly being lower middle class or poor would be much scarier than going to a country club with an ancle bracelet for a few years.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  I don't expect that at all, because someone like this has mechanisms to land back on their feet more easily than most.
- smcl 9y ago
  In a sane world the fines which would the bottom line of the company get the attention of the shareholders who challenge the million+-dollar salaries of the executives who oversaw all this and boot them out. I would hope there's stuff in their contracts to prevent these executives from receiving a golden parachute or receiving compensation for unvested options etc in this situation (i.e I think normal firing rules don't apply when you're fired for "gross misconduct" and this sounds pretty much like that to me). But then that is in a sane world. You're right that most companies would just either eat the losses, or hike up prices to compensate - leaving the executives with another jolly story to tell at the country club.
init-as 9y ago
I’ve always looked at prison as more of a deterrent for committing crimes. If he wasn’t criminally charged maybe others would think committing similar actions would be worth just paying fines. You might say that people in the auto industry wouldn’t copy his actions but I’d say prison works this way on a societal level.
SCdF 9y ago
> but I'm unsure that prison is an effective mechanism here (or for many other crimes, for that matter) If you acknowledge that prison isn't an effective method for many other crimes, what's your specific point here, in relation to this case? What puts this person apart from, say, someone in prison for taking drugs? If we agree that prison is a giant waste of time, should we really be starting with white collar criminals?
appleflaxen 9y ago
what is a more effective deterrent than this? the wealthiest among us can afford any fine, and it stings. but who has seven years of their life to give away? nobody. this is catastrophic for the individual and his family, and it should be.
emodendroket 9y ago
I think a lot of people couldn't care less if the company might face fines several years later, when they might not even be around.
crispyambulance 9y ago
> In this case, the financial penalties imposed on the companies themselves seem like a more effective tool. Why do you say that? Depending on their size, financial penalties can be seen merely as "a cost of doing business." The ultimate goal here is to hold car makers accountable for their systematic fraud and violation of emissions standards. Accountability will deter future violators. There's no better way to convince "golden-parachute" executives to take these transgressions seriously than to put violators in jail.
s73ver_ 9y ago
"So the goal must be to discourage others from committing similar offenses. Fair enough, but there must be a better and more efficient way to accomplish that than locking people in a compound for several years." I mean, if you've got an idea, I'd love to hear it. But it seems to me that's it's not just the thought of, "This is illegal; I might go to prison," but it's "This is illegal; I might go to prison, and they're actually pursuing executives responsible for these things." "In this case, the financial penalties imposed on the companies themselves seem like a more effective tool." The problem with just punishing the company as a whole, instead of also pursuing the executives responsible, is that it doesn't actually discourage acting badly. Any individual action tends to get lost in the amorphous blob of the company. The company might suffer, and the individual might be asked to resign with their golden parachute, but they're not going to suffer. They're not going to feel any actual pain that would stop anyone else from doing the same thing.

danielbarla 9y ago

Why can't we have both (which seems to be happening in this case)? It seems like it's appropriate and efficient, and will actively discourage people from similar activities, at the individual level.

theWatcher37 9y ago
OP seems to dance around saying the idea that punishing people is wrong. OP is wrong. We want cultural and financial incentives not to do wrong. We also want raw primal fear, if you do this evil shit they’re gonna get you and lock you away forever type fear... if you do this stuff.
- tempestn 9y ago
  I don't believe that punishing people is wrong. I believe that punishing people is a waste of resources unless it accomplishes useful goals, such as discouraging that person or others from behaving in a similar manner in the future. And if you accept that that is the goal, it is then logical to put resources toward the most efficient means of accomplishing it, to maximize your chances of success. I find it unlikely that long prison terms are that most efficient means in most cases (an exception might be dangerous likely re-offenders), given considerable evidence that it is ineffective in discouraging most forms of crime, and in some cases can increase likelihood of engagement in crime by ex-convicts. Edit: there probably is value in some amount of prison time as a deterrent though, as I elaborate on in the comment below. My main point is that I highly doubt there is anything like a linear relationship, if any relationship at all, between the length of prison sentences and the effectiveness of the deterrent. And given that (if in fact it's true,) we might as well keep sentences reasonably short, and use the resources saved more effectively.
  - yeukhon 9y ago
    So what exactly do you propose? I agree that yes drug dealers and likes don’t stop selling drugs or killing people because of prison sentence. But they are afraid of cops because they prefer not to get locked up. Likewise capital punishment does not prevent or lower murderer rate. There is no correlation at all. So we have to seperate prevention and fear. The fear that you’d have to go to jail is the reason why punishment exists. we want people to know their actions are always held accountable in the perfect system - but unfortunately not..... Prevention is education and make sure every community has a fair balance of income - a poor community is of course going to have a high crime in theory.
    - tempestn 9y ago
      I don't have all the answers. And I do think some amount of prison as a deterrent is probably effective. But consider this: how many things would you consider doing if getting caught would mean a year in prison, but wouldn't do if it could mean 10 years? I can't think of very many. Like, assume you have no other reason to avoid doing these things, so it's something you saw as a completely moral act. Either one I'm going to do everything possible to avoid; I'll avoid the act if it isn't completely necessary, and if I perceive that it is, I'll do whatever I can to avoid getting caught. But I can't see my behaviour really changing based on the length of the term - what would be _worth_ a year in prison but not 10? (Especially considering that in any kind of theft or something along those lines, you're not going to get to keep what you took if caught.) Now, I'm a pretty analytical person, so I'm probably most likely to be affected by deterrents (although perhaps also most likely to believe I could avoid getting caught!) A more impulsive criminal might not consider the possible consequences much at all; certainly not enough to distinguish between a low or high number of years locked up. So if we take it as a given that long prison terms are not particularly more effective at deterrence than short ones - and I believe there is evidence to back that up, but I'm not an expert; if I were actually in a position to change these things I'd obviously do the research! - and that keeping people in prison costs a large amount of money, it seems to me best to reduce prison terms to the minimum degree possible while maintaining their deterrent benefit, and to redirect the savings into things that evidence suggests are effective in reducing crime (education, social programs, etc.) Ironically, given my initial comment, this kind of highly calculated crime (the VW emissions) is probably most likely to be deterred by prison sentences. Once again though, I don't expect a long sentence (and 7 years seems long to me for a non-violent crime) would be any more effective than a short one. I mean, would you risk _any_ non-trivial amount of time behind bars just to help your bosses make more money?

confounded 9y ago

I think you may have mistaken the justice system as fair or rational. The justice system punishes people. There are around 2.2M people in US prisons. Schmidt was involved in corruption --- for profit --- which duped ordinary people into releasing around 1MM tons of pollution in to the atmosphere in a single year; about the same as all the power generation for the 66 million people in the UK. What's the scale of the damage that most of the other 2.2M people in prison did? Sold some drugs? Stole a crappy old car?

tempestn 9y ago
I don't disagree with you at all. In fact, I would hope that if one were to see locking this middle manager in prison as pointless, it could act as a mental stepping stone to reconsidering the purpose of the prison system in general.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Experience suggests the actual result will be a two-tiered justice system where rich criminals are far less likely to go to prison, even when committing serious crimes.
brango 9y ago
> The justice system punishes people. There are around 2.2M people in US prisons. The justice system punishes society by failing to adequately rehabilitate offenders. As a result many go on to reoffend. So really the current system is only punishing the next innocent victims of crimes perpetrated by released inmates. See the difference in reoffending rates between Norway and the USA, and their different approaches to prison time. For a start, the US views the inmates as "criminals", Norway views the inmates as people who did something illegal.
- s3nnyy 9y ago
  >"US views the inmates as "criminals", Norway views the inmates as people who did something illegal." Interesting point you are making here. In Norway's case it's "what someone did", and if he stops doing it, it's fine again whereas if you think/say "these people are criminals" it appears as if these people are inherently bad, which is a worse basis to help people improve.

Nicholas7900 9y ago

COMPOSITE HACKS If Truly you Are In Need Of A PROFESSIONAL LEGIT HACKER Who Will Get Your Job Done Efficiently With Swift Response, Congratulations, You Have Met the Right HACKERS. WHO ARE COMPOSITE HACKS??? • We are a Team Of Professional HACKERS , a product of the coming together of Legit Hackers from the Dark-Web, (pentaguard,CyberBerkut, RedHack , Black Hat, White Hack ) we have been existing for over 12years, our system is a very Strong and decentralized command structure that operates on ideas and directives. JOB GUARANTEE: • Frankly speaking, I always give a 100% guarantee on any job we are been asked to do, because we have always been successful in Almost all our jobs for over 12years and our clients can testify to that . To hack any thing needs time though, but we can provide a swift response to your job depending on how fast and urgent you need it. Time also depends on what exactly you want to hack and how serious you are. Enough time with social engineering is required for hacking. So if you want to bind us in a short time, then just don't contact us because We can't hack within 30minutes,sorry. Basically, time depends on your luck. If its good luck, then it is possible to hack within 30minutes but, if it is in the other way round, it would take few hours. I have seen FAKE HACKERS claiming they can hack in 30min, 20min , but there is no REAL HACKER who can say this (AVOID THEM). Please Note : we have only one contact email : compositehacks@gmail.com We will be happy to have you join over 2000 satisfied clients around the world to use our services. OUR HACKING CAPABILITIES: There are so many Reasons why people need to hire a hacker, It might be to Hack a Websites to deface , retrieve information, edit information or give you admin access Some people might need us for Hacking any smart phone giving you access to all activities on the phone like , text messages , call logs , Social media Apps and other informations. Some might need to Hack a Facebook , gmail, yahoomail, Instagram , twitter and every other social network Accounts, Some might need to Hack into Court's Database to Clear criminal records. However we can also Hack into school's websites (server) to change grades without any trace, Also Some Individuals might want to Track someone else's Location probably for investigation cases. All these Are what we can get Done withing few hours. SOME OTHER SPECIAL SERVICES WE OFFER: Hacking and sales of Programmed credit cards & CREDIT CARD TOP-UP Sales of untraceable phones (even the pentagon can not track our phones) Sales of Tutorial packs for Beginner Ethical Hackers. You can also contact us for other Cyber Attacks And Hijackings, we do almost All. Contact Us for Your Desired Service Via: compositehacks@gmail.com We Treat Every Request With Utmost Confidentiality

hvidgaard 9y ago

GDPR in the EU grants authorities ability to fine businesses €20 million or 4% of global revenue, whichever is greatest, when they have a data breach where neglect played a role. I imagine that a fine of similar proportion will have some effect on other companies to not do it. The risk is too great.

lostlogin 9y ago
Weird that big business then faces a relatively softer punishment.
- contravariant 9y ago
  Well this is the maximum punishment, the fine doesn't have to reach those limits if the company can't pay it anyway. In practice I suspect that small businesses either fly under the radar or are given some degree of leniency.
  - kodablah 9y ago
    > I suspect that small businesses either fly under the radar Off topic, but this is what I dislike about the GPDR, the subjective enforcement. Do I as an SMB stop selling to EU because I can't afford the potential fine (risk management of course, never would intentionally violate)? Or do I trust arbitrary selective enforcement?
    - hvidgaard 9y ago
      Unless you explicitly deal with sensitive information, you shouldn't worry.

SturgeonsLaw 9y ago

We've had decades of soft touch corporate fines that haven't done shit to curb bad behaviour (see: banks), those punishments are utterly ineffective. Giving execs who order criminal acts jail time will be far more effective. Just you watch - VW will absolutely colour between the lines now. It's easy to gamble when it's the house's money on the table, but when the instigators face real punishment they'll sharpen right up.

ohthehugemanate 9y ago
Emphasis on "soft touch". The punishment amounts of money are often very small compared to the profit gained. In the EU, fines can be expressed as a percentage of annual revenue. So imagine something strict enough to work. I'm sure a fine of 25% of annual global revenue for 10 years would put a lot of pressure where it needs to be, for example.
- achamayou 9y ago
  The issue with that is that it’s effectively collective punishment for everyone working at VW, whether they had any part in the cheating or not. If also fails to punish individuals who may since have moved on or retired. Targeting the individuals responsible seems more fair and efficient on the whole, if more difficult to implement.
  - wereHamster 9y ago
    Collective punishment incentivises the company to put safeguards into place. Papertrails for all decisions, four eyes principle, transparency etc. Corporations are people, right? Punish the person. The corporation can decide whether to shift the punishment down to the responsible people (conduct their own internal investigation to find the responsible people, and punish them appropriately), and work towards a structure where these things won't happen or can be detected early.
  - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
    Well, maybe its time to start looking at a corporate death penalty. We kill people who do really bad and are convicted. Take it out of the shareholders. Oh, and yes, also imprison executives who do that. This doesn't have to be an either/or. Do both. Or, maybe a few million dollar fine, after they got a profit of a few billion. That'll learn 'em!

bambax 9y ago

Agreed. Some prison time seems warranted but 7 years seems harsh, even considering what he did was very bad and harmful to a lot of people. (But Americans simply love prison, apparently). The ones who are getting off easily, IMHO, are the regulators. Their job would be to make sure cars respect emissions limits in all contexts, and that would mean actively testing the cars in many different configurations. How is it possible that it never occurred to anyone there, to test cars in real-world conditions, just to make sure the results they were getting weren't contaminated by the normal testing setup? This is utter intellectual laziness and should incur some kind of reprimand. Or maybe regulators should hire Mr Schmidt and put him in charge of future testing. He would know what to look for.

zorked 9y ago
"Volkswagen Emissions Scandal Could Cause 1,200 More Premature Deaths" (from vehicles in Germany alone!) Seven years is a very light sentence for this. I would guess that sort of damage makes him easily a top 1% criminal. Of the entire world. [1] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/volkswagen-deaths_us_58b99ff0e4b0b99894173edd https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/volkswagen-deaths_us_58...
- credit_guy 9y ago
  “could cause N deaths” is very different from “have caused N deaths beyond any reasonable doubt”.
  - wellboy 9y ago
    Could cause 1200 deaths is definitely will cause 10 deaths and probably will definitely cause 300 deaths. Probably you mean, has caused x deaths directly instead of has caused x deaths indirectly?
    - credit_guy 9y ago
      No. To be considered a criminal, you need to be found guilty of a crime, and for that the prosecutors need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you committed the act.

vesinisa 9y ago

From the article: > Mr. Schmidt did not identify any Volkswagen superiors who might have pressured him to lie to regulators. I think the point here is refusal to co-operate with prosecutors. They wanted to know who at Volkswagen told him to lie, and they would have been happy to let him off the hook if he co-operated. He refused, essentially continuing to demonstrate his loyalty to VW and thus perpetuating his complicity in the criminal justice process of the very crime he was now convicted of. He failed to demonstrative effective repentance, and now must serve as warning example to other white collar criminals.

tempestn 9y ago
Agreed that it makes sense for that to factor into the punishment.
rsp1984 9y ago
Which makes it likely that there is some kind of deal in the background between Schmidt and VW. After all his inside knowledge of the subject matter would be a very powerful weapon for the prosecutors and very dangerous for VW.
- matt4077 9y ago
  That's incredibly dangerous for all involved. First, it's piling another crime onto all the other crimes. Second, any such agreement, by nature of being illegal, would be unenforceable. Even if he has already collected on it, the company would be required to demand the money back if the deal is ever discovered. Yet if he had somehow managed to hide the money out of the company's reach, he would have been in a position to renege on the deal. TL/DR: don't make illegal deals with criminals who are smart enough to understand the prisoners' dilemma.
  - m_mueller 9y ago
    Then why would he travel to the US?
  - madaxe_again 9y ago

Al-Khwarizmi 9y ago

the risk of recidivism is about nil Why? As far as I know, recidivism in corruption is rather common. And if you send the corruptors home with a pat on the back, it will probably be more common.

tempestn 9y ago
Fair point, speaking of corruption in general. I meant more along the lines of doing specifically this again. The situation has changed such that companies are not likely to get away with gaming emissions in this way anymore. But yes, someone inclined to cheat in one way might be inclined to cheat in others.

mtgx 9y ago

I agree with you in principle, but how would you have punished the banks post-2008, for instance? Would you fine them $100 billion? While many were already on the brink of bankruptcy, because of the self-inflicted damage? If anything, they received money from the government to survive. Granted, they should have never been allowed to get to the point where not saving them meant an even bigger crash for the economy. They shouldn't have been allowed to leverage their money as much as they did, and they should have been split up into dozens of smaller banks. But failing that, it seems like imprisonment of wealthy billionaire executives who thought "they've got nothing to lose" if they risk their customers' money the way they did seems like the best option there.

CoongLiu 9y ago
The unfortunate reality is that most of the people who win the lottery of life, and luck their way into high levels of the financial industry are essentially untouchable. Exhibit A: https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/thains-regret-not-shopping-at-ikea/ https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/thains-regret-not-sh... Reaches for bailouts with one hand, and then does million dollar refurbishments. Then cracks jokes about it later, after moving on to being a shill wasting space on Ubers board, essentially wasting the time and resources of Uber, by being a paid voice of Kalanick. His decision to piss money so thoughtlessly, and get precisely nothing as punishment is depressing. My friends from Eastern Europe share stories of outrageously corrupt politicians, that everyone knows is corrupt. I sometimes wonder, if many parts of the western world are really so different. Instead of politics, the corrupt parasites congregate at the head of large businesses. It does seem to work out better for them.

alien_at_work 9y ago

> In this case, the financial penalties imposed on the companies themselves seem like a more effective tool. I disagree with this part. Fining the company just pushes prices up to compensate for the loss. It might cause the company to not be competitive and go out of business but that's mostly punishing people who didn't do anything. We need to hold the individuals responsible for their behavior. I agree with you that prison doesn't seem effective but if we use financial penalties they should be harsh and targetting the individual. I suspect someone who has been very rich for decades suddenly being lower middle class or poor would be much scarier than going to a country club with an ancle bracelet for a few years.

emodendroket 9y ago
I don't expect that at all, because someone like this has mechanisms to land back on their feet more easily than most.
smcl 9y ago
In a sane world the fines which would the bottom line of the company get the attention of the shareholders who challenge the million+-dollar salaries of the executives who oversaw all this and boot them out. I would hope there's stuff in their contracts to prevent these executives from receiving a golden parachute or receiving compensation for unvested options etc in this situation (i.e I think normal firing rules don't apply when you're fired for "gross misconduct" and this sounds pretty much like that to me). But then that is in a sane world. You're right that most companies would just either eat the losses, or hike up prices to compensate - leaving the executives with another jolly story to tell at the country club.

init-as 9y ago

I’ve always looked at prison as more of a deterrent for committing crimes. If he wasn’t criminally charged maybe others would think committing similar actions would be worth just paying fines. You might say that people in the auto industry wouldn’t copy his actions but I’d say prison works this way on a societal level.

SCdF 9y ago

> but I'm unsure that prison is an effective mechanism here (or for many other crimes, for that matter) If you acknowledge that prison isn't an effective method for many other crimes, what's your specific point here, in relation to this case? What puts this person apart from, say, someone in prison for taking drugs? If we agree that prison is a giant waste of time, should we really be starting with white collar criminals?

appleflaxen 9y ago

what is a more effective deterrent than this? the wealthiest among us can afford any fine, and it stings. but who has seven years of their life to give away? nobody. this is catastrophic for the individual and his family, and it should be.

emodendroket 9y ago

I think a lot of people couldn't care less if the company might face fines several years later, when they might not even be around.

crispyambulance 9y ago

> In this case, the financial penalties imposed on the companies themselves seem like a more effective tool. Why do you say that? Depending on their size, financial penalties can be seen merely as "a cost of doing business." The ultimate goal here is to hold car makers accountable for their systematic fraud and violation of emissions standards. Accountability will deter future violators. There's no better way to convince "golden-parachute" executives to take these transgressions seriously than to put violators in jail.

s73ver_ 9y ago

"So the goal must be to discourage others from committing similar offenses. Fair enough, but there must be a better and more efficient way to accomplish that than locking people in a compound for several years." I mean, if you've got an idea, I'd love to hear it. But it seems to me that's it's not just the thought of, "This is illegal; I might go to prison," but it's "This is illegal; I might go to prison, and they're actually pursuing executives responsible for these things." "In this case, the financial penalties imposed on the companies themselves seem like a more effective tool." The problem with just punishing the company as a whole, instead of also pursuing the executives responsible, is that it doesn't actually discourage acting badly. Any individual action tends to get lost in the amorphous blob of the company. The company might suffer, and the individual might be asked to resign with their golden parachute, but they're not going to suffer. They're not going to feel any actual pain that would stop anyone else from doing the same thing.