4 ms·

> So far we anchor the companies to humans that have to carry the risk of the consequences of the company's actions. Not really. Companies are typically limite

by gnode 8y ago

> So far we anchor the companies to humans that have to carry the risk of the consequences of the company's actions. Not really. Companies are typically limited liability, and even criminal law in countries such as the US and England acknowledges that there are cases when no particular human is culpable for a company's criminal actions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_liability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_liability). Of course, people are still liable when they are simply using a company to carry out a criminal enterprise, or wilfully committing crimes on behalf of the company. In this regard, a machine-led company would not be legally significantly different from a human analyst-led company.

rectang 8y ago
Consequences famously never came for executives in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Our legal system has not kept up with the innovation in the realm of shenanigans perpetrated through a veil of plausible deniability. Corporations are evolving at a rapid pace.
- gnode 8y ago
  > Consequences famously never came for executives in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. I'd say that it's a good thing that the law is generally not designed to punish harmful ends, but intent (wilful, negligent or reckless) to cause well-defined harmful ends. The financial crisis was a collective malfunction of the financial system that was mostly not anticipated (barring the lucky minority that bet against the status quo).
  - jki275 8y ago
    That's a rather charitable view of 2008. I don't think many people share it.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    It seems optimistic to assume there there was no "negligent or reckless intent" in the financial crisis.
    - nradov 8y ago
      True, but in criminal court intent has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not just assumed.
  - nine_k 8y ago
    I don't think re-packaging subprime debt was so far away from willful and reckless.
    - gnode 8y ago
      Reckless intent requires that the person knew there is was significant risk of the guilty act happening (e.g. driving with your eyes closed to show off has a likely and known risk of causing injury and death). I don't think we can just assume that market makers thought their actions were likely to upend the economy.
      - heavenlyblue 8y ago
        Yeah. But in this scenario reckless driving provides personal gains for the owners of the businesses. What if you can invent new methods of "reckless driving" before they are put in the legal system and thus reap their benefits? It's just like designer drugs.
        gnode 8y ago
        > It's just like designer drugs. I think an important distinction is that drug prohibition often works in terms of specific chemicals by statute. E.g. drug X is now illegal for use and distribution. Securities fraud law instead works in concepts and intentions and is fleshed out by case law. E.g. did the seller give the buyer sufficient information for the buyer not to have been defrauded? A better analogy to securities using chemicals would be poisoning. The law doesn't need to catch up to specific chemicals; if it's evident that you wilfully, or recklessly added a poison to someone's food, it's illegal, and it doesn't matter how you did it. If it turns out that some ingredient is unknowingly toxic and the whole industry was adding it, then it's difficult to argue criminal intent. The SEC is more like the FDA, than it is the DEA.

by gnode 8y ago

rectang 8y ago

Consequences famously never came for executives in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Our legal system has not kept up with the innovation in the realm of shenanigans perpetrated through a veil of plausible deniability. Corporations are evolving at a rapid pace.

gnode 8y ago
> Consequences famously never came for executives in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. I'd say that it's a good thing that the law is generally not designed to punish harmful ends, but intent (wilful, negligent or reckless) to cause well-defined harmful ends. The financial crisis was a collective malfunction of the financial system that was mostly not anticipated (barring the lucky minority that bet against the status quo).
- jki275 8y ago
  That's a rather charitable view of 2008. I don't think many people share it.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  It seems optimistic to assume there there was no "negligent or reckless intent" in the financial crisis.
  - nradov 8y ago
    True, but in criminal court intent has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not just assumed.
- nine_k 8y ago
  I don't think re-packaging subprime debt was so far away from willful and reckless.
  - gnode 8y ago
    Reckless intent requires that the person knew there is was significant risk of the guilty act happening (e.g. driving with your eyes closed to show off has a likely and known risk of causing injury and death). I don't think we can just assume that market makers thought their actions were likely to upend the economy.
    - heavenlyblue 8y ago
      Yeah. But in this scenario reckless driving provides personal gains for the owners of the businesses. What if you can invent new methods of "reckless driving" before they are put in the legal system and thus reap their benefits? It's just like designer drugs.
      - gnode 8y ago
        > It's just like designer drugs. I think an important distinction is that drug prohibition often works in terms of specific chemicals by statute. E.g. drug X is now illegal for use and distribution. Securities fraud law instead works in concepts and intentions and is fleshed out by case law. E.g. did the seller give the buyer sufficient information for the buyer not to have been defrauded? A better analogy to securities using chemicals would be poisoning. The law doesn't need to catch up to specific chemicals; if it's evident that you wilfully, or recklessly added a poison to someone's food, it's illegal, and it doesn't matter how you did it. If it turns out that some ingredient is unknowingly toxic and the whole industry was adding it, then it's difficult to argue criminal intent. The SEC is more like the FDA, than it is the DEA.